AMERICAN 

AND 
ENGLISH  STUDIES 


AMERICAN 

AND 

ENGLISH  STUDIES 

BY 

WHITELAW  REID 


VOLUME  I 
GOVERNMENT  AND  EDUCATION 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

MDCCCCXIII 


COPYRIGHT,  1913,  BY  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 
PUBLISHED,   NOVEMBER,  1913 


D.  B.  UPDIKE,  THE  MERRYMOUNT  PRESS,  BOSTON 


INTRODUCTION 

THESE  volumes  assemble  some  of  the  more  impor 
tant  contributions  made  by  Whitelaw  Reid  to  the 
discussion  of  matters  of  public  interest.  They  are 
designed  to  illustrate  both  his  purely  intellectual 
habit  and  his  point  of  view  as  a  citizen.  The  pub 
licist  is,  in  a  measure,  a  man  of  action,  exercising 
an  influence  which,  if  not  always  immediately  ob 
vious,  is  nevertheless  often  decisive,  and  Mr.  Reid's 
career  brought  him  into  very  close  and  effective 
contact  with  the  subjects  here  treated.  More  than 
once  he  stepped  down  into  the  arena  itself.  The 
ideas  on  government  embodied  in  many  of  these 
pages  were  developed  not  only  in  the  study,  but 
amongst  other  practical  leaders,  fighting  for  po 
litical  ideals  which  were  of  value,  in  his  opinion, 
solely  as  they  found  expression  in  just  laws  and 
the  betterment  of  American  life. 

His  nomination  as  Vice-President  on  the  ticket 
with  Benjamin  Harrison  in  1892  did  not  bring  him 
his  first  experience  as  an  active  participant  in  po 
litical  campaigning.  He  had  assumed  that  role  as 
early  as  1856,  when,  being  still  too  young  to  vote, 
he  nevertheless  took  the  stump  for  Fremont.  Four 
years  later,  having  then  a  paper  of  his  own,  "The 
Xenia  News,"  in  the  Ohio  town  where  he  was 


INTRODUCTION 

born,  he  wrote  vigorously  in  support  of  Lincoln's 
candidacy  and  made  a  number  of  speeches  in  the 
same  cause.  These  episodes  foreshadowed  the  la 
bors  of  his  maturity,  simplifying  his  aim  and  fix 
ing  his  vocation.  Thenceforth,  until  the  day  of  his 
death  at  the  post  of  duty  as  Ambassador  to  Great 
Britain,  he  was  entirely  absorbed  in  public  affairs. 
All  his  life  he  was  talking  and  writing  about  them, 
and  there  were  many  occasions,  here  and  abroad, 
—  sometimes,  he  used  ruefully  to  say,  almost  too 
many, — on  which  he  was  asked  to  speak  about 
them.  The  task  was  not  difficult.  He  spoke,  indeed, 
with  a  natural  facility,  in  a  clear  voice  of  unusual 
carrying  power,  and,  having  had  muchexperience, 
he  was  wont  to  use  his  memory  more  than  his  man 
uscript,  save  in  instances  of  long,  sustained  expo 
sition,  when  the  analysis  of  some  historical  theme 
or  the  portrayal  of  a  great  character  made  notes 
indispensable.  He  was  ready  on  his  feet,  as  numer 
ous  occasional  remarks  of  his  at  dinners  and  the 
like  plainly  testified.  But  it  was  characteristic  of 
his  workmanlike  methods  and  of  his  literary  in 
stinct  to  give  to  such  studies  as  are  here  gathered 
together  a  form  significant  of  the  essayist,  devel 
oping  his  subject  with  leisurely  care  and  seeking 
to  expose  it  in  the  light  of  constructive  thought. 
He  spoke  only  when  he  had  something  to  say, 


INTRODUCTION 

and  looked  well  to  the  basis  of  his  convictions. 
When  he  spoke  on  education  it  was  as  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Regents,  who  not  only  had  the 
instruction  of  the  young  at  heart,  but  knew  their 
needs  from  first-hand  investigation,  advocating 
principles  which  experience  had  shown  him,  when 
he  himself  had  taught,  to  be  in  their  interest.  Be 
fore  his  appointment  to  the  Spanish  Peace  Com 
mission  he  had  thought  out  his  views  on  the  reten 
tion  of  the  Philippines.  As  is  shown  by  the  paper 
on  that  subject  now  reprinted,  hard  common  sense 
and  a  practice  of  distinguishing  fact  from  theory 
had  led  him  whole-heartedly  to  commit  himself 
then  to  the  policy  afterward  officially  adopted.  If 
the  reader  seeks  any  light  on  Mr.  Reid's  success  in 
the  diplomatic  service,  first  as  Minister  to  France, 
then  in  the  settlement  of  the  negotiations  with 
Spain  and  on  other  special  missions,  and  finally  on 
his  British  embassy,  he  may  find  it,  perhaps,  in  the 
temper  of  the  observations  which  this  book  contains 
on  such  topics  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  anarchism, 
the  statesmanship  of  Burke, orthe  strangely  mixed 
qualities  of  Talleyrand.  They  point  to  the  disinter 
ested  manner  in  which  he  approached  a  problem. 
He  was  a  staunch  believer  in  party  organization, 
a  devoted  Republican,  but  impatient  of  the  parti 
sanship  which  colors  a  man's  mental  processes. 

C  vii  3 


INTRODUCTION 

The  last  of  the  political  portraits  that  he  drew,  the 
one  of  Jefferson,  dating  from  but  a  few  short  weeks 
before  his  death,  is  typically  scrupulous  in  its  bal 
ancing  of  the  lights  and  shadows  in  that  perplexing 
career. 

Intellectual  honesty  comes  by  nature,  or  it  does 
not  come  at  all.  On  the  other  hand,  its  operations, 
like  those  of  any  other  of  a  man's  inborn  resources, 
rest  largely  upon  training.  The  four  papers  here 
grouped  under  the  head  of  "  An  Editor's  Reflec 
tions,"  and  expressive  of  Mr.  Reid's  ideas  on  jour 
nalism  both  in  his  early  manhood  and  in  his  later 
years,  explain  to  some  extent,in  the  emphasis  they 
place  upon  disciplinary  studies,  his  attitude  toward 
the  business  of  life  and  of  letters.  In  April,  1872, 
on  the  eve  of  his  long  career  as  editor  of  "The 
Tribune,"  he  spoke  at  the  University  of  the  City  of 
New  York  on  the  life  of  the  journalist.  No  young 
man  could  be  considered  fit  for  it,  he  said,  who  did 
not  have  some  adequate  knowledge  of  the  history 
of  political  parties  in  this  country,  or  failed  to  add 
to  that  a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  the  entire 
history  of  the  United  States.  This,  too,  was  only 
a  beginning.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  journalist  to 
make  himself  acquainted  with  the  general  history 
of  the  world,  to  know  the  fundamental  principles 
of  common,  constitutional,  and  international  law, 

C  viii  3 


INTRODUCTION 

to  learn  something  about  political  economy,  to  ac 
quire  a  training  in  logic,  to  seek  familiarity  with 
more  than  one  foreign  language,  and  to  be  fastid 
iously  competent  in  the  use  of  his  own.  It  was  a 
stiff  programme.  But  at  least  the  man  who  framed 
it  could  claim  that  he  had  framed  it  for  himself. 
The  biography  of  Mr.  Reid,  which  is  now  in  prep 
aration,  will  show  in  detail  what  use  he  made  of  the 
instruments  of  character  and  professional  activity 
he  thus  enumerated;  but  in  the  meantime  these 
two  volumes  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  nature  and 
scope  of  some  of  his  ideas,  and  the  aptness  of  his 
motto,  Per  Ardua  ad  Alta. 

ROYAL  CORTISSOZ. 


New  York,  June  1,  1913. 


Most  of  the  studies  in  this  collection  appear  now  in  book 
form  for  the  first  time.  For  permission  to  reprint  the  few 
that  have  previously  been  published  thanks  are  due,  in  the 
following  instances,  to  the  Jirms  named:  "  Problems  Flowing 
from  the  Spanish  War"  "Territorial  Expansion"  "Our 
Duty  in  the  Philippines"  (The  Century  Company)  ;"  The- 
Rise  of  the  United  States"  (The  T.  Y.  Crowell  Company); 
"  The  Practical  Issues  in  a  Newspaper  Office,"  "In  an 
Old  Ohio  Town"  (Henry  Holt  &  Company);  "  Thomas 
Jefferson,"  "  The  Scot  in  America  and  the  Ulster  Scot" 
(The  Macmillan  Company);  "Talleyrand"  (G.  P.  Put 
nam's  Sons) . 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

VOLUME  I 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  v 

THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  3 

University  of  Cambridge.  Summer  Meeting,  1906 

ORGANIZATION   IN  AMERICAN  LIFE  37 

Carnegie  Institute.  Pittsburg,  November  6,  1902 

THE  DANGER-POINT   IN    IMMIGRATION  49 

New  England  Society,  New  York,  December  22,  1903 

THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW  63 

Republican  Club.  New  York,  May  23,  1905 
Lotos  Club.  New  York,  May  18,  1905 

SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

I.  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  THE  POLK  DOCTRINE  75 

II.  ANARCHISM  9O 

Yale  University,  June  23,  1903 

PROBLEMS   FLOWING   FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR      1O7 

"The  Century  Magazine"  September,  1898 

TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION  127 

Miami  University,  June  15,  1899 

OUR  DUTY   IN  THE  PHILIPPINES  169 

Princeton  University,  October  21,  1899 

HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES   FACED   ITS  EDUCA 
TIONAL  PROBLEM  201 

Armitstead  Lecture.  Dundee,  November  2,  1906 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES   IN   AMERICA  229 

Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Ajiril  19,  1901 

EDUCATION   IN  ENGLAND  259 

Associated  Academic  Principals  of  New  York  and  the  New  York 
State  Teachers'  Association.  Syracuse,  December  26,  1907 

IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN  289 

Dedication  of  the  new  City  Hall.  Xenia,  Ohio,  February  16,  1881 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

NEITHER  George  Canning  nor  his  king 
called  this  New  World  into  being,  and 
it  was  not  called  into  being  by  anybody 
for  the  purpose  of  redressing  the  balance  of  the 
Old.  As  to  its  most  significant,  and,  for  a  long  time, 
its  leading  settlements,  it  was  called  into  being  by 
Charles  I,  when  he  pursued  Separatists,  non-Con 
formists,  and  others,  in  the  professed  interest  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Its  growth  was  checked 
by  the  rise  of  Oliver  Cromwell;  and  while  the 
Protectorate  lasted,  the  Puritan  emigration  ceased. 
Charles  II  revived  it,  and  he  and  his  brother  James, 
by  their  treatment  of  the  Puritans  in  England  and 
the  Covenanters  in  Scotland,  did  more  than  any 
other  human  power  to  make  New  England  and 
other  large  sections  of  the  United  States  what  they 
are.  Tudors  and  Stuarts  alike,  whatever  their  inten 
tions,  were  helpful  to  the  infancy  of  the  new  na 
tion,  and  there  is  fitness  in  its  possessing  endur 
ing  monuments  to  commemorate  them — Virginia, 
Maryland,  the  Carolinas,  Jamestown,  and  James 
River. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  period,  say  at  the  open 
ing  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  near  the  close 
of  Queen  Elizabeth's  long  reign,  all  England  was 
much  less  than  London  is  now.  The  total  popula 
tion  of  England  was  a  little  over  four  millions, 
and  what  is  now  far  the  greatest  city  in  the  world 
had  then  possibly  a  quarter  of  one  million  within  its 

C   3   1 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

limits.  A  rapid  increase  was  prevented,  in  fact,  a 
material  decrease  had  been  caused,  by  the  enor 
mous  death  rate,  due  to  epidemics  which  science 
had  not  learned  tocontrol,to  unhealthful  surround 
ings,  to  constant  wars,  and  to  a  deplorable  waste 
of  human  life  in  the  ordinary  administration  of 
justice.  Between  1592  and  1665,  London  had  eight 
visitations  of  the  plague.  The  sweating  sickness 
and  the  smallpox  were  almost  equally  dreaded  and 
equally  uncontrollable.  The  unsanitary  habits  of 
the  people  were  extraordinary.  The  very  king  for 
whom  the  first  settlement  in  Virginia  was  named, 
according  to  the  declaration  of  James  Balfour,  never 
washed  even  his  hands.  Prisoners  were  tortured, 
robbers  were  hanged,  witches  and  religious  men 
whose  orthodoxy  was  not  our  doxy  were  burned. 
Fortrivial  offences  men  and  women  were  whipped 
or  set  in  the  stocks,  or  nailed  by  their  ears  to  the 
pillory.  Witchcraft  was  so  firmly  embedded  in  the 
faith  of  the  people  that  the  greatest  legal  writer 
of  his  time,  Sir  William  Blackstone,  said  as  late  as 
when  the  American  colonies  were  on  the  point  of 
revolting,  that  every  nation  in  the  world  had  borne 
testimony  to  it,  and  that  to  deny  it  was  to  deny  the 
revealed  word  of  God. 

This  is,  of  course,  not  a  fair  picture  of  the  Eng 
land  from  which  the  colonists  went  out,  though 
some  of  the  noticeable  features  are  accurately  por 
trayed.  We  can  faintly  conceive  the  limitations  of 
the  England  of  that  day,  how  little  it  was  like  the 
present  world,  when  we  add  that  it  knew  nothing 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  of  vaccination,  of 
gravitation,  of  the  velocity  of  light,  of  illumination 
by  petroleum,  gas,  or  electricity,  of  communica 
tion  by  fast  or  cheap  mails,  of  the  telegraph  or  the 
telephone;  that  it  had  no  newspapers,  and  that  its 
books  were  few  and  dear. 

Yet  this  England  had  Magna  Charta  and  par 
liamentary  government;  had  greater  and  better 
secured  personal  liberties  than  any  other  country 
in  Europe,  and  was  more  jealously  watchful  of 
them ;  had  an  inbred  respect  for  law,  and  for  its 
officers,  and,  in  spite  of  a  degree  of  illiteracy  that 
seems  now  surprising,  probably  led  Europe  also 
in  diffused  intelligence  and  in  a  reasoning  devotion 
to  religion.  In  the  gallery  of  England's  immortals, 
Milton  was  soon  to  be  added  to  Shakespeare;  and 
the  nation  was  rapidly  approaching  the  great  con 
test  in  which  religious  zeal  and  a  passion  for  civil 
liberty  in  an  almost  equal  cooperation  were  to  pre 
cipitate  a  revolution  and  execute  a  king. 

Meantime,  the  land  in  which  the  new  nation  was 
to  spring  up,  a  land  of  rivers  and  lakes  and  un 
broken  forests  beyond  the  Atlantic,  lay  palpitating 
with  wild  life  under  summer  suns  or  blanketed 
under  winter  snows,  practically  unpeopled.  The 
first  feeble  colony  arrived  at  Jamestown  seven 
years  after  the  opening  of  the  century ;  the  little 
company  borne  by  the  "  Mayflower''  to  Plymouth 
Rock,  thirteen  years  after  that.  The  only  inhabit 
ants  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
were  the  mysterious  aborigines,  whose  origin,  Ian- 

C  5  H 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

guages,  and  customs  were  alike  unknown,  whose 
trails  through  the  forests  were  the  only  roads, 
whose  patches  of  Indian  corn  were  the  only  agri 
culture,  whose  clusters  of  wigwams  were  the  only 
cities.  Between  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Gulf,from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Alleghenies,  there  were  in  all 
less  than  two  hundred  thousand  of  them,  in  limits 
which  now  contain  the  second  city  in  the  world, 
seventeen  great  states,  and  a  total  population  of 
over  thirty  millions. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  this 
New  World  had  started  into  full  life  among  the 
forests.  Scattered  and  still  feeble  colonies,  con 
trolled  and  mainly  peopled  by  Great  Britain,  lay 
in  isolated  settlements  along  the  Atlantic  coast, 
from  Massachusetts  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  at 
several  points  were  spreading  westward  toward 
the  Alleghenies.  By  this  time  they  had  come  to 
include  a  sprinkling  of  several  northern  races — 
soon  to  melt  wonderfully  into  the  Anglo-Saxon 
mould  and  to  renounce  other  allegiance  in  order 
to  seek  the  privileges  of  British  subjects.  There 
were  Dutch  in  New  York — in  fact,  for  about  half 
a  century,  New  York  was  a  Dutch  city.  There 
were  Swedes  in  Delaware,  and  Germans  in  Penn 
sylvania,  and  to  these  were  added  the  best  France 
had  to  give  in  a  considerable  influx  of  the  per 
secuted  and  exiled  Huguenots.  There  were  many 
sects,  too,  and  these  did  not  melt  so  readily  into 
one  mould.  There  were  Puritans  in  most  of  New 
England,  Baptists  in  Rhode  Island,  Episcopalians 

c  o 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

in  New  York  and  Virginia,  Presbyterians  in  New 
Jersey  and  the  Carolinas,  Quakers  and  Lutherans 
in  Pennsylvania,  Roman  Catholics  in  Maryland. 
All  of  them  insisted  on  freedom  to  enjoy  their  own 
religion, — many  of  them  had  come  to  an  uninhab 
ited  country  for  that  purpose, — but  not  all  were 
ready  to  tolerate  other  people's  religion. 

At  times  there  had  been  efforts  to  impose  upon 
them  the  Established  Church  of  England,  but  to 
this  they  thought  consent  impossible.  Religion  and 
education  they  fostered  alike.  The  church  and  the 
schoolhouse  went  with  every  fresh  pioneer  settle 
ment.  But  many  of  them  left  England  to  escape 
bishops,  others  to  escape  the  ruling  classes,  and  in 
their  new  homes  they  would  submit  neither  to  a 
prelacy  nor  to  a  nobility.  They  demanded  the  right 
of  the  English-born  to  participate  in  the  govern 
ment,  but  they  were  not  ready  to  let  everybody 
share  it  with  them.  In  the  early  days  of  New  Eng 
land  none  but  church  members  could  vote  or  hold 
office.  As  late  as  1679,  hardly  one  grown  man  in 
Massachusetts  out  of  five  could  vote.  Cotton  de 
nounced  democracy,  thinking  no  doubt  with  Mon 
tesquieu,  that  liberty  may  be  least  safe  under  a  rule 
of  the  mere  majority ;  nobody  dreamed  of  letting 
Indians  or  negroes  vote ;  till  long  after  the  Revo 
lution,  a  considerable  property  qualification  was 
required  from  every  voter. 

In  one  way  or  another  they  were  ruled  by  offi 
cers  from  England;  and  they  brought  with  them 
the  general  body  of  English  law.  But  they  had  or- 

C  7  H 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

ganized  parliamentary  government  in  most  of  the 
colonies,  on  the  English  pattern,  with  more  exact 
representation  and  under  written  constitutional  ar 
rangements  more  precise  than  England  had  ever 
employed.  They  looked  to  England  for  protection, 
spoke  of  it  habitually  as  home,  and  held  themselves 
under  its  authority;  yet  they  already  exercised  a 
large  measure  of  local  self-government,  rightly 
considered  this  a  necessity  of  their  remote  situa 
tion  and  peculiar  perils,  and  regarded  any  infringe 
ment  upon  it  with  even  more  than  the  historical 
Anglo-Saxon  jealousy. 

The  old  ideas  of  blind  loyalty  to  the  throne  had 
been  shaken,  first  by  the  Puritan  revolt  against 
Charles,  and  later  by  the  deposition  of  James.  They 
had  twice  seen  Parliament  set  aside  a  king,  and  it 
was  only  a  step  from  this  to  the  belief  that  not  the 
king,  but  the  representatives  chosen  by  the  people, 
must  always  be,  in  the  end,  the  controlling  power 
of  the  state.  From  that  again,  the  distant  colonists 
found  it  only  a  step  farther  to  the  belief  that  in 
their  remote  isolation  they  should  choose  their 
own  representatives  instead  of  submitting  to  a 
rule  by  representatives  chosen  back  in  England 
for  English  purposes.  Thus  early  had  the  "  Mother 
of  Parliaments"  taught  the  sons  of  Great  Britain 
beyond  seas  to  better  her  instructions. 

And  yet  a  personal  sense  of  loyalty  to  the  sov 
ereign  remained  down  to  the  very  outset  of  the 
Revolution,  often  as  strong  in  America  as  in  Eng 
land,  sometimes  stronger,  and  generally  more  dis- 

C  8  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

interested.  Benjamin  Franklin  wrote  privately,  in 
1 768,  to  his  friends  at  home  of  George  III  as  "  the 
best  monarch  any  nation  was  ever  blessed  with." 
In  1 769,  when  he  had  to  report  the  refusal  by  the 
House  of  Commons  to  repeal  offensive  customs 
duties,  he  used  even  stronger  language: 

4 '  I  hope  nothing  that  has  happened,  or  may  happen,  will 
diminish  in  the  least  our  loyalty  to  our  sovereign  or  affec 
tion  for  this  nation  in  general.  I  can  scarcely  conceive 
a  king  of  better  dispositions,  or  more  exemplary  virtues, 
or  more  truly  desirous  of  promoting  the  welfare  of  all  his 
subjects.  The  body  of  this  people,  too,  is  of  a  noble  and 
generous  nature,  loving  and  honouring  the  spirit  of  lib 
erty,  and  hating  arbitrary  power  of  all  sorts.  We  have 
many,  very  many  friends  among  them." 

Seven  years  later  came  the  bitter  arraignment  of 
the  same  sovereign  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  and  the  richest  possession  of  the  English 
crown  was  lost  forever. 

From  the  outset  the  colonists  were  thrown  on 
their  own  resources,  in  a  wild  continent  and  among 
savage  people.  The  survival  of  the  fittest  made 
them  a  picked  body,  a  real  corps  d' elite.  Their  fac 
ulties  were  quickened  by  necessity , by  danger,  and 
by  climate.  The  lonely  life  and  the  necessity  for 
quick  decisions,  often  without  much  opportunity 
for  consultation,  led  to  a  marked  personal  inde 
pendence,  an  ever-ready  resourcefulness,  and  an 
absolute  freedom  of  individual  initiative,  which 
speedily  became  general  characteristics. 

But  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century 

C  9  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

their  opinions  and  their  traits  had  not  worked  out 
to  the  logical  conclusion.  With  all  their  personal  in 
dependence,  the  colonists  never  dreamed  of  stand 
ing  alone;  with  all  their  free  personal  initiative, 
they  still  looked  implicitly  to  the  Mother  Country 
for  guidance. 

The  growth  of  these  colonies,  which  for  a  long 
time  was  slow,  painful,  and  intermittent,  had  of 
late  become  more  rapid.  Their  population  was  only 
about  200,000  when  James  II  was  deposed  and 
William  and  Mary  came  to  the  throne.  A  quarter 
of  a  century  later,  when  the  House  of  Hanover 
came  in  with  the  accession  of  George  I,  the  tables 
compiled  for  the  Board  of  Trade,  giving  in  detail 
the  whites  and  negroes  in  the  colonies,  showed  an 
aggregate  of  434,000.  The  number  had  thus  more 
than  doubled.  In  the  next  half  century  this  again 
was  trebled.  By  1754,  when  the  movements  for 
taxing  America  were  about  to  begin,  there  were 
1,165,000  whites  and  253,000  negroes,  say,  in 
round  numbers  nearly  a  million  and  a  half. 

The  England  which,  after  a  variable  but  on  the 
whole  not  unmotherly  care  of  the  colonies,  was 
now  to  enter  upon  that  unhappy  experiment  of 
arbitrary  taxation,  presented  almost  as  strong  a 
contrast  to  the  England  we  have  seen  in  the  clos 
ing  days  of  Elizabeth,  as  did  the  thirteen  colonies 
of  1 754  to  the  New  World  before  Jamestown  and 
Plymouth.  In  numbers  it  had  grown  from  four  mil 
lions  to  perhaps  ten.  In  government  it  had  passed 

10 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

from  Essex  to  Newcastle  and  Bute.  Landmarks 
on  that  long  road  were  a  civil  war,  a  common 
wealth,  a  restoration,  more  discontent,  a  deposi 
tion, the  choiceof  a  newsovereign  from  abroad, and 
enormously  increased  power  in  Parliament.  And 
now  at  last  another  royalist  reaction,  with  revival 
of  old  prerogatives  through  parliamentary  methods 
by  purchased  majorities,  was  to  precipitate  a  crisis 
in  the  American  possessions.  Meantime,  the  nation 
had  enjoyed  an  enormous  extension  of  commerce, 
beginning  with  the  revolution  in  1688,  had  pros 
pered  on  colonial  trade,  had  won  glory  in  foreign 
wars.  Of  its  entire  exports  one-fourth  was  taken  by 
its  colonies  in  America ;  under  the  inspiring  guid 
ance  of  Chatham,  England  was  rapidly  coming  to 
the  front  in  both  hemispheres;  and  this  political 
leadership  among  the  nations  was  followed  by  a 
sudden  and  enormous  increase  in  national  wealth. 
But  in  the  attempt  now  to  begin  for  stretching 
the  power  of  the  crown  in  the  colonies,  one  thing 
was  forgotten.  While  the  people  that  elected  their 
sovereign  by  Parliament  had  thus  made  their  own 
representatives  supreme,  few  realized  that  Amer 
icans  could  learn  the  lesson.  It  scarcely  entered 
many  English  minds  that  those  dependent  poor 
relations  might  in  their  turn  demand  an  equal 
authority  for  their  representatives.  Ministers  at  this 
date  were  indeed  curiously  ignorant  of  the  col 
onies.  Distance,  inattention,  and  misinformation 
cooperated  to  produce  political  blindness.  An  acute 
English  historian,  explaining  how  subservient  and 

[ "  b 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

prejudiced  English  officials  in  America  misled  their 
sovereign,  said  that  in  fact  "his  own  governors, 
by  their  reports  to  him,  wrote  King  George  out  of 
America/'  To  them,  and  so  easily  enough  to  him, 
it  seemed  a  natural  thing  that  the  colonists  should 
be  content  to  buy  everything  from  England — un 
reasonable  that  they  should  want  to  manufacture 
things  for  themselves ;  a  matter  of  course  that  they 
should  accept  interference  from  England  in  their 
domestic  concerns,  and  pay  English  taxes — dis 
loyal  and  rebellious  that  they  should  hesitate. 

And  yet  these  uneasy  colonists  had  given  splen 
did  proof  of  their  devotion.  Unaided,  they  had  cap 
tured  Louisburg,  then  the  greatest  French  strong 
hold  in  America,  for  the  British  crown.  They  had 
responded  to  Pitt's  calls,  involving  both  men  and 
money,  far  beyond  reasonable  expectations.  Nearly 
two-thirds  of  Abercrombie's  force  on  Lake  George 
had  been  sent  from  New  England,  New  York, 
and  New  Jersey.  Another  year  Connecticut  had 
five  thousand  men  under  arms  to  support  the  Brit 
ish  campaign,  and  Massachusetts  seven  thousand. 
When  disasters  came,  the  feeble  colonists  strained 
afresh  their  resources.  Massachusetts  sent  out  one 
in  six  of  all  its  inhabitants  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
and  Connecticut  an  equal  or  even  greater  propor 
tion.  While  the  war  lasted  that  expelled  the  French 
from  the  Great  Lakes  and  from  the  Ohio,  New 
Jersey  taxed  herself  at  the  rate  of  a  pound  per 
head  for  every  inhabitant.  Massachusetts  levied  on 
personal  incomes  at  the  rate  of  thirteen  shillings 

C  «  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

and  fourpence  to  the  pound,  besides  land  taxes, 
poll  taxes,  and  even  colonial  stamp  taxes.  Connect 
icut,  though  feebler  in  resources,  was  no  whit  be 
hind.  With  such  warmth  did  the  colonists  support 
the  great  sympathetic  Minister  of  the  crown,  while 
he  rescued  Tennessee,  Michigan,  and  the  country 
of  the  Great  Lakes,  conquered  the  west,  and  con 
quered  Canada.  What  might  not  have  happened 
had  Chatham  but  remained  in  power? 

At  this  period  the  colonies  had  been  developing  in 
America  for  about  a  century  and  a  half.  England 
might  well  have  taken  pride  in  the  result,  for  the 
race  that  had  sprung  up  amid  the  trials  of  the  west 
ern  wilderness,  though  different  from  the  race  at 
home,  had  lost  few  of  its  conspicuous  virtues  and 
had  found  others.  The  colonists  were,  in  the  main, 
curiously  orderly  and  law  abiding.  They  were 
temperate,  moral,  generally  religious.  The  world 
had  never  seen  such  widely  scattered  rural  com 
munities  with  a  more  general  diffusion  of  intelli 
gence  and  a  smaller  percentage  of  illiteracy .  Every 
body  worked  and  enjoyed  the  fruits  of  his  labor 
— there  were  no  rich  and  comparatively  few  poor. 
There  was  a  nearer  approach  to  equality  of  op 
portunity  than  older  countries  could  show,  and  to 
personal  equality  when  the  opportunity  had  been 
wisely  improved.  There  was  no  governing  class; 
all  took  part  in  the  government,  and  the  man  who 
had  been  called  to  the  public  service,  at  the  end 
of  it  dropped  back  naturally  into  his  position,  and 

C    13   ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

instead  of  making  laws  might  again  be  making 
shoes.  There  were  no  palaces,  but  ( away  from  the 
frontier  settlements )  there  were  very  few  hovels ; 
and  according  to  the  standard  of  the  times  the 
mass  of  the  population  was  probably  as  comfort 
ably  housed  as  in  England,  and  with  better  sur 
roundings,  though  often  in  unpainted  dwellings  of 
wood.  The  proportion  of  considerable  landholders 
to  mere  householders  was  naturally  larger  than 
in  older  communities.  Social  life  was  everywhere 
simple,  but  not  without  dignity,  or,  in  the  rising 
cities,  without  grace.  They  had  the  English  virtue 
of  hospitality,  accompanied  by  the  unusual  free 
dom  from  reserve  or  constraint  which  came  with 
their  environment.  In  a  word,  they  were,  in  the 
main,  like  the  best  type  of  English  middle-class 
rural  population,  but  with  the  independence  and 
alertness  bred  of  the  never-ending  conflict  with  the 
wild  country,  wild  beasts,  and  wild  men.  Chatham 
and  Burke  were  proud  of  their  Americans;  it  would 
have  been  well  for  Newcastle  and  Bute  and  men 
higher  still,  if  at  least  they  had  understood  them. 
These  last  left  such  comprehension  instead  to  a 
young  Frenchman  to  whom  the  world  a  few  years 
later  was  glad  to  listen.  "  Vast  regions  of  Amer 
ica  ! "  exclaimed  Turgot,  at  the  Sorbonne,  in  1 750. 
"  Equality  keeps  them  from  both  luxury  and  want, 
and  preserves  to  them  purity  and  simplicity  with 
freedom.  Europe  herself  will  find  there  the  per 
fection  of  her  political  societies  and  the  surest 
support  of  her  well-being.  But/'  Turgot  added, 

C    14  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

in  words  that  might  have  borne  a  profitable  warn 
ing  across  the  Channel,  "colonies  are  like  fruits, 
which  cling  to  the  tree  only  till  they  ripen/' 

How  that  predicted  end  was  hastened  with  such 
an  English  people  as  we  have  been  describing, 
by  efforts  to  abridge  or  withdraw  rights  on  which 
all  Englishmen  insisted,  may  now  be  seen  in  the 
events  of  the  next  twenty  years.  The  tendency  was 
noticeable  in  the  later  ministries  of  George  II; 
the  policy  was  pursued  with  continuity  and  ear 
nestness  from  the  accession  of  George  III. 

In  1750  the  construction  of  more  iron  mills  in 
the  American  colonies  was  forbidden,  that  there 
might  be  more  demand  for  the  English  product 
While  the  liberty  to  manufacture  was  thus  ham 
pered,  the  liberty  to  import  slaves,  under  the  guise 
of  a  right  to  trade  between  the  Barbary  Coast  and 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  was  in  the  very  same  year 
extended  specifically  "to  all  subjects  of  the  King 
of  England/'  In  1753  a  new  governor  was  in 
structed  to  withhold  from  the  New  York  Assembly 
the  right  it  had  always  exercised  of  considering 
and  voting  annually  the  allowances  for  the  sup 
port  of  the  government  and  of  examining  the  ac 
counts.  This  Englishman  (Sir  Danvers  Osborne), 
when  he  found  these  men  of  English  blood  and 
parliamentary  experience  would  not  submit  to 
such  orders,  was  so  horror-stricken  at  the  situa 
tion  in  which  he  was  involved,  that  he  went  out  and 
hanged  himself.  The  next  year  the  colonies  were 

C   15  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

required  to  contribute  to  a  general  fund,  and  Hali 
fax,  by  the  king's  command,  proposed  an  Ameri 
can  union  for  that  purpose,  with  a  congress  of 
one  commissioner  from  each  colony  to  adjust  the 
quotas.  Ominous  suggestion!  Franklin  had  already 
favored  the  union,  but  with  modifications.  He 
would  have  no  taxation  by  Parliament,  unless  with 
ample  representation  in  that  body,  and  legislation 
on  an  equal  basis  for  all. 

A  year  later,  in  1756,  the  British  commander- 
in-chief  was  reinforcing  the  recommendation  of 
various  royal  governors  for  an  act  of  Parliament 
levying  a  stamp  duty,  a  poll  tax,  and  an  excise 
tax  on  all  the  colonies  for  a  general  fund,  and, 
if  any  colony  failed  to  pay  promptly,  providing 
means  for  collecting  by  royal  warrants  of  distraint 
and  imprisonment.  He  was  succeeded  the  same 
year  by  Loudoun,  who,  under  a  commission  pre 
pared  by  Chancellor  Hardwicke,  was  instructed  to 
make  the  Colonial  Assemblies  "distinctly  and  pre 
cisely  understand"  that  the  king  required  of  them 
"  a  general  fund  to  be  issued  and  applied  as  the 
commander-in-chief  should  direct/'  and  likewise 
to  pay  for  the  quarters  of  the  soldiers.  When  an 
attempt  was  made,  under  this,  to  billet  officers  of 
the  army  upon  New  York  City,  the  mayor  ob 
jected  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England, 
the  privileges  of  Englishmen,  and  common  law. 
"  Free  quarters  are  everywhere  usual,"  replied  the 
commander-in-chief;  "I  assert  it  on  my  honor, 
which  is  the  highest  evidence  you  require.  God 

C  is  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

damn  my  blood,  if  you  do  not  billet  my  officers 
upon  free  quarters  this  day,  I'll  order  here  all  the 
troops  in  North  America  under  my  command,  and 
billet  them  all  upon  the  city  my  self ."  New  York 
submitted,  unwillingly  enough,  and  soon  after 
Philadelphia,  under  similar  compulsion,  did  the 
same.  While  the  troops  were  thus  quartered  in  the 
principal  cities,  the  frontiers  were  left  open  to  the 
Indians  and  the  French. 

With  such  conditions  prevailing  in  America, 
George  III  came  to  the  throne  in  October,  1760. 
It  took  scarcely  fourteen  years  more  to  precipitate 
the  crisis.  Early  in  1 761  the  restrictions  in  the  Acts 
of  Trade  were  brought  into  court  in  Boston,  and 
James  Otis  appeared  to  resist  the  call  upon  all  ex 
ecutive  officers  and  subjects  of  the  colony  to  assist 
in  their  enforcement.  His  arguments  were  cogent, 
but  what  startled  alike  the  court  and  the  commu 
nity  was  the  defiant  challenge  he  flung  at  the  feet 
of  the  judges.  He  would  sacrifice  everything,  he 
said,  to  "the  sacred  calls  of  his  country,  in  opposi 
tion  to  a  kind  of  power,  the  exercise  of  which  cost 
one  King  of  England  his  head  and  another  his 
throne/' The  court,  quite  staggered  for  the  mo 
ment,  postponed  a  decision,  and  the  chief  justice 
wrote  to  England !  Meantime,  the  fiery  orator  was 
elected  to  the  Assembly,  and  next  year  we  find 
him  declaring  there  that  no  taxes  could  be  arbi 
trarily  levied  without  the  consent  of  the  legislative 
body.  That  was  the  advantage,  he  said,  of  being 
an  Englishman  rather  than  a  Frenchman ;  and  for 

[   17  H 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

the  colonists  he  held  that  the  rights  of  a  Colonial 
Assembly  were  the  same  as  were  those  of  the 
House  of  Commons  for  residents  of  England.  To 
such  outspoken  tones  did  the  policy  of  the  Minis 
ters  carry  the  colonists  in  the  first  two  years  of 
George  the  Third's  reign. 

By  the  first  day  of  the  next  year  ( 1 763 )  it  was 
admitted  that  the  plans  of  the  ministry  included 
the  permanent  quartering  of  twenty  battalions  on 
the  colonies  after  the  peace  in  Europe,  the  colo 
nies  themselves  to  bear  the  expense.  It  soon  came 
out  that  the  scheme  went  even  farther,  contem 
plating  the  withdrawal  of  the  colonial  charters, and 
the  imposition  of  a  uniform  system  of  government 
throughout  the  colonies.  Two  years  were  spent  in 
talking  about  this  revolutionary  scheme,  while  the 
colonists  vehemently  protested — the  substance  of 
their  language  being  that  their  charters  were  in 
violable,  and  that  taxation  by  a  Parliament  in  which 
they  were  not  represented  was  tyranny.  At  last, 
the  fateful  Stamp  Act  was  passed  in  February, 
1 765 ;  but  could  not  be  signed  by  the  king,  except 
by  commission.  The  pathetic  fact  was  not  known 
at  the  time  that  his  reason  was  already  unsettled. 
The  patience  of  the  colonists  was  now  but  nine 
years  from  the  breaking-point. 

The  first  effect  of  the  Stamp  Act  was  an  out 
burst  of  universal  opposition  in  the  colonies,  and 
a  concerted  movement  to  paralyze  its  enforcement 
by  extorting  the  resignation  of  every  stamp  officer. 
The  next  and  even  more  ominous  effect  was  the 

C   *8   3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

assemblage  in  New  York  of  a  Congress  containing 
duly  authorized  representatives  of  nearly  all  the 
colonies.  Against  the  opposition  thus  concentrated 
the  act  was  powerless.  Scarcely  a  stamp  was  sold, 
and  after  setting  all  America  in  a  flame,  the  Stamp 
Act  was  repealed, thirteen  months  after  it  had  been 
passed. 

Then  was  the  moment,  perhaps  the  last  moment, 
when  the  hands  of  the  clock  could  have  been 
turned  back.  But  the  goodwill  aroused  in  America 
by  the  repeal  was  wasted.  Sixteen  months  later 
( June,  1 767 ) ,  the  hour  had  struck,  and  the  Minis 
ters  carried  through  Parliament  the  bill  decreeing 
the  American  Revolution.  It  was  a  bill  reviving  the 
effort  to  tax  the  colonists  by  a  distant  Parliament 
in  which  they  were  not  represented,  for  purposes 
about  which  they  had  not  been  consulted,  and  reviv 
ing  it  less  than  a  year  and  a  half  after  they  thought 
the  mistake  had  been  acknowledged  and  definitely 
abandoned  by  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Tax.  The 
new  bill,  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  imposed  cer 
tain  duties  on  articles  imported  into  America,  in 
cluding  a  tax  of  three  pence  a  pound  on  tea. 

The  colonists  instantly  prepared  to  resist.  Otis 
and  other  leaders  counselled  moderation,  but  sub 
mission  wasim  possible.  By  a  common  impulse  they 
decided  on  non-intercourse  as  the  effective  answer 
to  an  attempt  to  collect  taxes  on  goods  they  were 
expected  to  buy.  In  New  England,  New  York, 
and  Pennsylvania  alone,  that  answer  cost  British 

C   '9  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

merchants  a  reduction  of  over  two-thirds  in  their 
sale  of  the  taxed  articles  ina  single  year.  The  move 
ment  spread  till  before  1770  it  included  all  the 
colonies,  and  as  might  have  been  foreseen,  gave  a 
wonderful  stimulus  to  home  manufactures.  Within 
a  year  a  single  town  in  Massachusetts  made  eighty 
thousand  pairs  of  women's  shoes  and  was  selling 
them  throughout  the  colonies.  The  ministry  resent 
fully  talked  of  transporting  leading  men  to  Eng 
land  to  be  tried  for  treason  under  an  old  statute 
of  Henry  VIII.  Then  it  sent  more  troops.  Lord 
North,  speaking  for  the  ministry  and  the  king, 
said:  "America  must  fear  you  before  she  can  love 
you.  I  am  against  repealing  the  last  Act  of  Parlia 
ment,  securing  to  us  a  revenue  out  of  America.  I 
will  never  think  of  repealing  it  until  I  see  America 
prostrate  at  my  feet/'One  of  the  songs  of  the  day, 
which  were  often  doggerel,  but  sometimes  poetry, 
was  soon  sung  freely  in  the  streets  of  Boston.  It 
might  have  been  taken  as  the  colonists'  response 
to  Lord  North: 

"  Come,  join  hand  in  hand,  brave  Americans  all, 
By  uniting  we  stand,  by  dividing  we  fall; 
To  die  we  can  bear,  but  to  serve  we  disdain; 
For  shame  is  to  freedom  more  dreadful  than  pain. 
In  freedom  we're  born,  in  freedom  we'll  live; 
Our  purses  are  ready, 
Steady,  boys,  steady, 
Not  as  slaves ,  but  as  freemen ,  our  money  we '  11  give . ' ' 

The  government  demanded  that  a  Massachusetts 
legislature  should  rescind  its  acts,  and  dissolved  it 

c  ^o  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

when  it  refused.  The  legislative  functions  of  the 
New  York  legislature  had  already  been  suspended. 
As  the  tension  increased  and  there  was  more  talk 
of  using  the  troops,  one  colonist  wrote:  "  We  can 
not  believe  that  they  will  draw  the  sword  on  their 
own  children,  but  if  they  do,  our  blood  is  more  at 
their  service  than  our  liberties/' 

There  was,  as  the  circumstances  made  certain, 
constant  friction  in  Boston  between  the  troops  and 
the  exasperated  citizens.  Affrays  were  not  infre 
quent.  At  last  came  the  inevitable  petty  officer  who 
loses  his  head  in  an  emergency.  One  of  this  species 
gave  the  word  to  fire  too  soon,  and  the  people  were 
maddened  by  what  was  called  the  Boston  massacre. 
But  in  the  spirit  of  conformity  to  law,  as  they  under 
stood  it,  so  characteristic  of  the  colonists,  they  held 
a  town  meeting,  opened  it  with  prayer,  considered 
the  occurrence,  and  ordered  that  the  soldiers  con 
cerned  be  tried  for  their  lives  in  the  civil  courts. 
It  was  characteristic  again  that  such  popular  lead 
ers  as  John  Adams  and  Josiah  Quincy,  under  a 
conviction  of  their  duty  as  lawyers,  answered  the 
appeal  of  the  officer  in  command,  appeared  in  his 
defence,  and  saved  him.  More  friction  following, 
the  troops  were  ordered  to  leave  the  town,  and 
were  actually  sent  to  the  citadel.  Conflicts  occurred 
in  New  York  and  elsewhere,  with  similar  excite 
ment. 

Once  again  the  ministry  wavered  in  a  course  that 
threatened  such  storms,  and  in  March,  1770,  re- 

[ «  n 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

pealed  all  its  taxes  on  America,  save  that  on  tea. 
The  non-importation  agreements  relaxed.  New 
York,  which  had  held  to  them  more  firmly  than 
any  of  the  associate  colonies,  wearied  of  seeing  its 
imports  fall  off  five  parts  out  of  six,  while  the  oth 
ers  profited  by  its  abstinence,  and  so  promoted  a 
joint  movement  for  resuming  trade  in  everything 
but  tea.  By  August,  1 770,  London  was  rejoicing  at 
the  return  of  American  orders — and  somewhat 
misconstruing  them. 

But,  as  if  heaven  had  ordained  that  every  oppor 
tunity  should  be  thrown  away,  a  month  later  the 
fortress  commanding  Boston,  built  and  maintained 
by  the  colony  to  be  garrisoned, as  the  charter  guar 
anteed,  by  its  militia  under  the  command  of  its  gov 
ernor,  was  taken  over  by  the  regular  troops ;  and 
the  harbor  of  Boston  made  the  rendezvous  of  all 
ships  stationed  in  North  America.  The  answer  of 
Massachusetts  to  martial  law  was  a  commission 
to  Benjamin  Franklin  to  represent  it  in  stating  its 
grievances  to  the  ministry  in  London. 

Events  were  now  moving  in  too  resistless  a  cur 
rent  for  that  benignant  messenger  of  peace  to 
check  them.  On  a  paltry  question  of  exempting  its 
commissioners  of  customs  from  taxation  on  their 
salaries,  the  governor  came  again  in  conflict  with 
the  Massachusetts  Assembly,  and  claimed  for  the 
crown  an  unheard  of  power. 

A  few  months  later  (January,  1772),  South 
Carolina  was  aggrieved  at  having  been  induced 

C    22    } 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

to  establish  fixed  salaries  for  the  judges  if  made 
permanent  officials,  only  to  have  their  own  judges 
forthwith  removed,  and  an  Irishman,  a  Scotch 
man,  and  a  Welshman  sent  over  to  take  these 
permanent  places. 

Two  or  three  months  later  still,  Virginia  felt 
outraged  at  having  its  efforts  to  restrict  the  slave 
trade  thwarted  by  an  instruction  to  the  governor, 
"upon  pain  of  the  highest  displeasure,  to  assent 
to  no  law  by  which  the  importation  of  slaves 
should  be  in  any  respect  prohibited  or  obstructed/' 
An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  throne,  and  reached 
England  just  as  Lord  Mansfield  had  decided  that 
a  slave  becomes  free  the  moment  he  touches  Eng 
lish  soil.  But  not  even  that  could  secure  a  hearing 
for  the  Virginia  appeal,  or  English  consent  to  the 
Virginia  law  to  restrict  the  slave  trade. 

His  Majesty's  ship"Gaspee"  needlessly  exas 
perated  the  Rhode  Islanders  by  seizing  live  stock, 
detaining  vessels,  and  making  illegal  seizures  of 
goods.  The  chief  justice  gave  an  opinion  against 
these  acts.  The  admiral  overruled  the  chief  justice, 
and  said  if  the  people  of  Newport  attempted  to 
rescue  any  vessel,  he  would  hang  them  as  pirates. 
Thereupon,  when  the  "Gaspee,"  pursuing  the 
Providence  packet,  ran  aground,  a  few  men  from 
Providence  and  Bristol  boarded  her,  overpowered 
the  offensive  lieutenant  and  his  crew,  set  them 
ashore,  and  burned  the  vessel  to  the  water's  edge. 
Commissioners  were  ordered  to  find  the  offend 
ers  and  send  them  to  England  for  trial.  The  chief 

C  ^  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

justice  refused  to  permit  apprehensions  for  trans 
portation  beyond  seas.  Then  it  was  proposed  to 
take  away  the  charter  of  the  colony. 

Thus  every  month  seemed  to  add  to  the  popu 
lar  ferment,  and  to  spread  it  from  one  colony  to 
another. 

Meantime,  what  had  it  all  been  worth?  During  the 
progress  ofthe"  Gaspee  "business  the  Stamp  Office 
found  that  it  had  spent  twelve  thousand  pounds  in 
America  to  get  a  revenue  of  fifteen  hundred,  and 
even  this  revenue  came  only  from  Canada  and  the 
West  Indies.  That  was  what  the  Stamp  Tax  was 
worth.  Ships  and  soldiers  employed  to  enforce  the 
law  taxing  tea  had  cost  enormously,  and  the  East 
India  Company  had  lost  the  sale  of  half  a  million 
pounds'  worth  of  tea  per  year,  while  the  total  rev 
enue  from  the  tax  on  it  amounted  to  eighty-five 
pounds.  That  was  what  the  Tea  Tax  was  worth. 
So  at  last  the  East  India  Company  begged  for 
relief,  and  asked  leave  to  export  to  America  free  of 
all  duties.  Lord  North  preferred  another  way.  He 
held  to  the  tax  in  America,  but  gave  the  Company 
a  drawback  on  such  exports  of  all  the  import  duties 
it  had  paid.  The  Company  was  warned  that  this 
meant  trouble,  but  Lord  North  would  listen  to  no 
objections.  He  said  he  meant  "to  try  the  question 
with  America/'  So  it  was  tried.  The  tea  was  sent 
to  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Charles 
ton.  Boston  threw  it  into  the  harbor,  December 
16,  1773.  New  York  was  ready  to  do  the  same, 

c  24 i 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

but  adverse  winds  kept  the  ship  away.  Philadel 
phia,  through  a  town  meeting  of  five  thousand 
men/*  persuaded"  the  consignee  to  resign  and  the 
captain  to  take  his  ship  and  cargo  back  to  London. 
Charleston  "persuaded"  the  consignee  to  resign, 
there  w7as  nobody  to  pay  the  duty  or  sell  the  tea, 
and  it  rotted  in  the  cellars  where  it  was  stored.  And, 
finally,  when  a  tea  ship  at  last  reached  New  York 
(April  19,  1774),  four  months  after  the  Boston 
occurrence,  it  was  sent  back  the  next  day,  while 
eighteen  chests  of  tea  found  in  another  vessel  were 
merely  thrown  into  the  bay.  Lord  North's  experi 
ment  was  complete!  Also  the  substantial  union  of 
the  colonies  was  revealed. 

Franklin  had  been  furnished  with  certain  letters  by 
the  Governor  and  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  quite  at  variance  with  their  public  pro 
fessions,  and  evidently  designed  to  foment  exist 
ing  difficulties  and  secretly  provoke  the  ministry  to 
take  yet  more  stringent  measures  against  the  col 
ony.  He  thought  it  right  to  send  those  letters  to 
the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly.  Ultimately,  though 
contrary  to  his  expectation,  they  became  public, 
and  naturally  aroused  fierce  resentment  against  the 
American-born  officers,  who  were  thus  found  de 
ceiving  andunderhandedly  conspiring  against  their 
countrymen,  and  bringing  the  military  occupation 
upon  them.  The  Assembly  petitioned  the  king  for 
the  removal  of  the  exposed  governor  and  lieuten 
ant-governor,  and  Franklin  was  instructed  to  pre- 

C  *5  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

sent  the  petition.  Lord  Dartmouth  received  it  with 
his  usual  courtesy ;  but  when  it  was  referred  to  the 
Privy  Council  for  a  hearing,  the  whole  case  went 
off,  not  on  the  obvious  guilt  of  the  double-dealing 
officials,  but  on  the  alleged  misconduct  of  Franklin 
in  exposing  them  by  showing  their  letters.  Frank 
lin,  now  venerable  and  distinguished  throughout 
Europe,  was  kept  standing  at  the  bar  while  Wed- 
derburne,  the  solicitor-general,  insulted  and  lam 
pooned  him  for  stealing  or  betraying  private 
correspondence — and  this  from  a  ministry  that 
habitually  violated  the  seal  of  every  letter  it  cared 
for  and  could  intercept  in  the  mails !  The  Lords  in 
Council  roared  with  delight.  The  petition  which  all 
men  knew  to  be  true  was  dismissed  as  "ground 
less,  vexatious,  and  scandalous/'  But  years  after 
wards,  when  Wedderburne  died,  the  king  he  had 
thus  served  said :  "  He  has  not  left  a  greater  knave 
behind  him  in  my  dominions/'  The  king  he  had 
opposed  could  not  say  that  of  Franklin,  the  faithful 
servant  of  his  own  country,  the  idol  of  France,  and 
the  admiration  of  the  world. 

The  work  to  which  every  step  of  the  ministry  had 
for  years  been  tending  was  nearly  finished.  In 
March,  1774,  Lord  North  carried  through  Parlia 
ment  a  bill  closing  the  port  of  Boston  till  the  tea 
was  paid  for,  and  till  the  king  should  be  satisfied  of 
the  good  conduct  of  the  city  for  the  future.  Burke 
and  Fox  made  the  debate  memorable  and  splen 
did,  and  Lord  Dartmouth  showed  signs  of  the  de- 

c;  ^  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

sire  to  conciliate,  always  gratefully  remembered 
in  his  relation  to  the  colonies.  But  the  same  Lord 
Mansfield  who  had  decided  that  a  slave  could  not 
exist  on  English  soil,  while  the  ministry  he  sup 
ported  was  refusing  to  let  Virginia  limit  the  slave 
trade,  now  encouraged  that  ministry  to  the  utter 
most,  exclaiming,  "The  sword  is  drawn,  and  you 
must  throw  away  the  scabbard.  Pass  this  act,  and 
you  will  be  across  the  Rubicon/'  He  told  the  truth, 
more  exactly  than  he  knew. 

General  Gage, military  commander-in-chief  for 
all  North  America, and  now  made  civil  governor  of 
Massachusetts  also,  was  sent  out  with  four  more 
regiments  toclose  the  port  of  Boston, quarter  troops 
in  the  town,  bring  the  ringleaders  in  the  late  dis 
turbances  to  punishment  for  high  treason,  abolish 
town  meetings,  except  for  selecting  town  officers, 
appoint  and  remove  sheriffs  at  pleasure,  and  give 
sheriffs  so  appointed  the  selection  of  juries.  If  the 
colony  had  been  already  conquered,  harder  usage 
could  scarcely  have  been  proposed.  But  General 
Gage  thought  the  conquest  easy.  He  had  assured 
the  king  that  the  people  of  Massachusetts  "  will 
be  lyons  whilst  we  are  lambs,  but  if  we  take  the 
resolute  part,  they  will  undoubtedly  prove  very 
weak/' 

This  time  the  answer  of  America  was  a  Con 
tinental  Congress.  New  York  proposed  it  through 
her  "Sons  of  Liberty/'  Virginia  Burgesses,  after 
being  dissolved  by  the  governor,  held  a  meeting 
elsewhere,  adopted  it,  and  asked  Massachusetts 

C  37  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

to  appoint  the  time  and  place  of  meeting.  The 
Massachusetts  Assembly  engaged  in  that  busi 
ness,  when  General  Gage,  hearing  what  was  on 
foot,  sent  to  dissolve  them,  but  found  the  door 
locked.  It  was  not  opened  until  five  delegates  had 
been  appointed  to  attend  a  Continental  Congress 
in  Philadelphia  on  September  i ,  1 774 — about  five 
months  after  Parliament  had  passed  the  Boston 
Port  Bill! 

A  convention  of  towns  in  Suffolk  County,  Massa 
chusetts,  resolved  that  a  king  who  violates  the 
chartered  rights  of  his  people  forfeits  their  alle 
giance,  and  it  therefore  refused  obedience  to  the 
recent  act.  One  of  the  first  things  the  Continental 
Congress  did  was  to  send  Paul  Revere  to  bear  to 
Boston  their  warm  approval  of  the  Suffolk  County 
resolutions.  General  Gage  now  undertook  to  ar 
rest  Adams  and  Hancock,  as  conspicuous  leaders 
in  this  policy,  and  transport  them  to  England  for 
trial.  He  sent  a  body  of  regular  troops  to  do  it 
under  cover  of  night.  Warren  started  Paul  Revere 
on  a  midnight  ride,  ahead  of  the  British  troops,  to 
give  the  alarm.  At  Lexington  these  troops  came 
upon  a  body  of  minute  men  commanded  by  the 
grandfather  of  Theodore  Parker,  ordered  them  to 
disperse,  and  as  they  still  stood,  grim  but  undemon 
strative,  fired  upon  them.  Eight  fell  and  ten  more 
were  wounded.  Concord  followed  an  hour  or  two 
later,  the  embattled  farmers  fired  the  shot  heard 
round  the  world,  and  the  war  was  begun.  Frank- 

C   28  3 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

lin,  seeing  that  there  was  no  more  hope  in  London, 
was  already  upon  the  ocean,  returning  to  take  his 
place  with  his  own  people. 

I  have  finished  the  story.  What  remains  is  merely 
the  fighting — the  ghastly  civil  war  between  Great 
Britain  and  her  sons. 

But  the  contest  was  not  really  between  the 
British  people  and  their  colonizing  sons,  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  both  profited  by  the  result.  Even 
the  fighting  was  largely  between  Americans  and 
Hessians.  The  ministry  hired  soldiers  to  carry  on 
its  war,  because  Great  Britain  did  not  readily  fur 
nish  them.  The  actual  contest  was  between  what 
are  now  universally  recognized  as  Anglo-Saxon 
principles  of  government  and  a  movement  under 
the  king  of  the  day  that  would  have  set  England 
back  to  the  times  of  Charles  I.  The  colonists  were 
inspired  by  the  Protestant  Reformation  and  by 
Magna  Charta.  The  intellectual  emancipation  that 
came  from  the  one  and  the  fervor  for  personal 
rights  that  came  from  the  other  reached  their 
natural  development  easier  and  quicker  amid  the 
untrammelled  surroundings  of  a  new  world.  Their 
triumph  checked  a  reaction  in  England,  and  the 
British  government  of  the  nineteenth  century  was 
distinctly  more  advantageous  to  the  people,  more 
glorious  for  the  nation,  and  a  greater  beneficence 
to  Europe  and  the  world,  because  of  this  strug 
gle  with  the  colonists  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
eighteenth. 

C  29  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

It  used  to  be  said  that  American  histories  of  that 
period  were  unfriendly  and  unfair  to  Great  Britain. 
Perhaps  they  were.  At  the  close  of  this  civil  war 
with  the  Mother  Country,  Americans  may  have 
been  somewhat  in  the  temper  of  the  Puritans  after 
the  Parliamentary  wars,  or  of  the  Royalists  after 
the  Restoration.  Certainly  they  had  not  reached 
that  stage  in  the  evolution  of  free  government 
which  enabled  them,  eighty  years  later,  to  close 
another  civil  war  without  a  single  execution  and 
with  a  speedy  return  to  the  defeated  side  of  all  its 
political  privileges.  It  has  even  been  said  that  our 
histories  now  tend  to  perpetuate  an  old  unfairness 
and  bitterness.  If  that  were  ever  true,  I  hope  and 
believe  it  is  true  no  longer.  At  any  rate,  Americans, 
while  not  always  agreeing,  accept  in  the  main  with 
pleasure  the  work  upon  that  period  of  recent  Eng 
lish  historians  like  the  lamented  Lecky.  They  are 
satisfied  with  the  admirable  history  of  "The  Amer 
ican  Revolution/'  on  which  the  Right  Hon.  Sir 
George  Otto  Trevelyan  is  still  engaged.  And  they 
are  likewise  content  with  the  complimentary  re 
port  of  what  that  Revolution  led  to  in  the  luminous 
pages  of  "The  American  Commonwealth/'  by  the 
Right  Hon.  James  Bryce.  I  may  take  the  liberty  of 
here  adding  and  adopting  the  lines  of  the  great 
Victorian  poet,  with  which  one  of  these  English 
men  introduces  his  work: 

"O  thou,  that  sendest  out  the  man 
To  rule  by  land  and  sea, 

C  303 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Strong  mother  of  a  Lion-line, 

Be  proud  of  those  strong  sons  of  thine 

Who  wrench'd  their  rights  from  thee." 

When  the  war  began,  Edmund  Burke  estimated 
the  population  of  the  colonies  at  from  one-fifth  to 
one-fourth  that  of  Great  Britain.  White  and  black, 
it  scarcely  reached  two  and  three-quarter  mil 
lions.  When  the  war  closed,  there  were  2,389,000 
whites,  and  probably  in  all  little  short  of  three  mil 
lions.  Seven  years  later,  at  the  first  periodical  cen 
sus  in  1790,  there  were  nearly  four  millions.  The 
war  had  cost  the  colonists  one  hundred  and  forty 
millions  of  dollars.  Eighty  years  later  they  had 
another  civil  war,  which  left  them  with  a  debt  of 
$2,844,649,626,  and  with  a  population  of  thirty- 
five  millions;  and  to-day  their  debt  is  reduced  more 
than  one-half  ( to  $  i  ,284,461 ,413),  and  their  pop 
ulation  has  increased  to  over  eighty  millions,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  population  of  island  dependen 
cies.  Then  they  formed  a  narrow  fringe  along  the 
Atlantic  coast,  with  a  few  frontier  settlements 
breaking  through  the  gaps  in  the  Allegheny  range 
to  the  fertile  valleys  on  its  western  slopes ;  to-day 
they  overspread  a  continent,  and  swarm  in  the 
islands  of  the  sea. 

To  follow  the  effects  of  this  rise  of  the  United 
States  farther  now  is  beside  my  present  purpose. 
That  its  echo  was  first  heard  amid  the  crashing 
of  old  institutions  in  the  French  Revolution  cannot 
be  doubted.  It  was  certainly  a  factor  in  the  subse 
quent  rapid  extension  of  popular  rights  through- 

C  31    ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

out  Europe,  the  broadening  of  citizenship,  the  freer 
participation  of  the  people  in  their  governments. 
As  it  stimulated  liberty  by  its  political  develop- 
ment,so  it  stimulated  material  welfare  by  its  inven 
tions,  its  products,  and  its  opportunities.  We  can 
scarcely  conceive  now  of  a  world  without  Ameri 
can  food  and  American  cotton,  without  the  Ameri 
can  applications  of  steam  and  electricity,  or  with 
out  the  American  outlet  for  superfluous  energy 
and  superfluous  population. 

The  people  of  the  new  nation  held,  as  firmly 
as  they  had  while  colonists,  that  there  should  be 
no  taxation  without  representation,  and  they  were 
some  time  in  doubt  as  to  whether  there  should 
be  any  representation  without  taxation.  In  several 
states  ownership  of  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres  or  a 
town  lot  was  necessary;  in  scarcely  any  could  the 
suffrage  be  exercised  without  a  return  of  consider 
able  taxable  property,  real  or  personal.  A  reason 
able  degree  of  intelligence  was  also  exacted  and 
the  illiterate  were  excluded.  Far  fewer  offices  than 
now  were  elective.  The  judges  were  generally 
appointed,  sometimes  for  seven  years,  sometimes 
during  good  behavior.  Even  the  delegates  to  the 
Continental  Congress  were  chosen  not  by  the 
people  but  by  the  legislatures. 

There  was  no  hindrance  in  learning  trades ;  no 
limit  to  the  hours  of  labor;  no  power  to  keep  a 
man  from  working  if  he  wanted  to  work  and  found 
work.  The  colonists  would  have  accepted  unre- 

C  32  ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

servedly  those  golden  words  with  which  Clemen- 
ceau  lately  thrilled  the  French  Chamber  of  Depu 
ties,  but  while  accepting  them  would  have  won 
dered  why  he  thought  it  necessary  to  say  so  ob 
vious  a  thing  in  so  solemn  a  way:  "J'estime  que 
tout  homme,  qui  a  besom  de  travailler  et  qui  trouve 
du  travail,  a  le  droit  de  travailler;  J'estime  que  la 
societe  et  les  pouvoirs  publics  out  le  devoir  de  lui  as 
surer  Vexercice  de  ce  droit." 

The  result  of  it  all  is  the  marvel  of  modern  his 
tory.  It  was  an  English  prelate  and  scholar  who 
said  of  it,  "Time's  noblest  offspring  is  the  last/' 
What  in  the  final  analysis  made  the  success? — for 
who  shall  say  the  splendid  growth  will  survive,  if 
what  made  it  be  lost  ? 

Well,  first  of  all,  it  was  made,  as  most  successes 
are,  by  character.  America  in  the  making  was  in 
telligent,  moral,  religious,  and  religiously  devoted 
to  the  education  of  children.  It  was  desperately 
earnest.  It  was  alert  and  industrious — almost  with 
out  a  class  that  only  amuses  itself.  It  was  pas 
sionately  attached  to  its  personal  rights.  It  had  an 
inborn  respect  for  authority  and  reverence  for  law. 
Its  ancestors  had  been  used  to  representative  insti 
tutions  for  centuries,  and  it  was  thoroughly  trained 
in  parliamentary  government. 

And  next  the  success  was  made  by  circumstance. 
The  inefficient  were  sifted  out — those  left  were 
a  picked  class.  They  were  alone,  in  a  wild  but  fer 
tile  and,  as  it  seemed,  boundless  land.  Opportunities 

C   33   ] 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

opened  on  every  hand;  the  time,  like  the  climate, 
was  electric,  and  there  was  an  absolute  freedom 
for  individual  initiative. 

It  is  not  sure  that  such  a  success  could  be  won 
now;  it  is  not  sure  that  such  a  government  as  they 
founded  could  be  carried  on  now,  if  that  character 
were  materially  changed.  Is  it  even  sure  that  the 
success  could  be  maintained  if  those  circumstances 
were  materially  altered,  and  particularly  if  that 
fecund  freedom  of  individual  initiative  should  be 
destroyed,  by  the  collectivist  or  socialist  tendencies 
of  the  times? 

But  such  a  catastrophe  is  not  to  be  thought  of. 
Whatever  may  be  the  wild  speculations  of  the 
hour,  whatever  the  temporary  variations  from  the 
historic  course,  no  vessel  that  carries  the  English- 
speaking  races  has  lost  its  chart,  on  none  has  the 
compass  gone  hopelessly  astray.  The  old  head 
lights  still  burn.  Inspired  by  the  same  traditions, 
led  by  the  same  instincts,  these  races  in  either 
hemisphere,  in  whatever  zone,  on  whatever  con 
tinent  or  island,  will  surely  in  the  end  hold  fast 
to  those  ancient  characteristics  of  a  strong,  free 
people,  and  so  keep  secure  their  place  in  the  van 
of  human  progress. 


C   34 


ORGANIZATION  IN  AMERICAN  LIFE 


ORGANIZATION  IN  AMERICAN  LIFE 

WE  all  believe  in  our  form  of  government. 
In  fact,  we  are  intolerant  believers  in  it. 
Every  child  learns  to  think  that  it  is  the  best  in  the 
world, not  only  for  us  but  for  all  men.  Every  dema 
gogue  learns  to  bellow  first  from  the  cart  tail  his 
unlimited,  unquestioning  certainty  of  that  superi 
ority  and  universal  applicability. 

I  shall  not  dispute  the  belief — but  I  wishtodefine 
the  facts  about  it.  If  our  form  of  government  is  the 
best,  it  cannot  be  so  because  it  is  the  cheapest.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  one  of  the  most  expensive  in  the 
world ;  with  more  paid  lawmakers  than  any  other, 
higher  salaries  generally  for  subordinates,  though 
with  very  unworthy  scrimping  in  some  of  the  most 
important  places,  like  the  judiciary,  higher  pay  on 
government  contracts,  more  lavish  appropriation 
for  internal  improvements,  and  the  costliest  army 
in  proportion  to  number  and  work.  Our  form  of 
government  cannot  be  the  best  because  it  is  the 
most  efficient.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  one  of  the  slow 
est  in  the  world;  the  most  complicated,  cumbrous, 
and  limited.  Our  foreign  representatives  have  been 
again  and  again  humiliated  by  appeals  from  citi 
zens  abroad  whom  we  could  not  or  did  not  protect 
against  impressment,  with  our  passports  in  their 
hands,  into  the  military  service  of  other  countries. 
Every  few  years  we  are  all  humiliated  before  the 
world  because  of  riotous  outrages  on  Italians,  or  on 
Chinese,  or  on  other  foreigners,  which  some  state 

C   37  3 


ORGANIZATION  IN 

has  not  suppressed  or  atoned  for,  and  the  nation  has 
no  adequate  control  of.  So  recently  as  1902  there 
could  be  found  for  five  months  no  power  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  or  in  the  United  States  to  stop 
disorder  and  riot  in  the  coal  mines,  and  finally  that 
imperative  work  had  to  be  done  by  voluntary  effort 
outside  the  constitutional  processes  or  authority  of 
the  high  office  that  successfully  intervened. 

Even  within  the  spheres  in  which  it  will  work, 
our  form  of  government  is  not  the  easiest  to  man 
age.  On  the  contrary,  it  requires,  to  keep  it  running 
successfully,  more  public  spirit,  more  study  about 
candidates,  more  time  for  multitudinous  elections, 
local,  state,  and  national;  more  watchfulness  of 
public  officials,  and  a  higher  average  of  intelligence 
than  any  other  in  the  world ;  and  no  one  has  ever 
shown  that  without  this  alert  and  devoted  public 
spirit, this  unremitting  attention, and  this  high  aver 
age  of  intelligence,  it  could  have  achieved  its  best 
successes  or  could  now  maintain  them.  Some  of 
our  states  repudiated  their  public  obligations,  and 
it  took  vehement  and  long-continued  effort  to  get 
the  disgraceful  action  reversed.  The  whole  country 
was  convulsed  for  years  in  the  struggle  to  prevent 
payment  of  the  national  debt  in  a  depreciated  me 
dium  at  half  price.  The  greatest  city  on  the  con 
tinent  fell  under  the  almost  absolute  domination 
of  a  vulgar  thief.  We  had  to  have  years  of  strenu 
ous  exertion  by  the  city's  best  men  of  all  parties, 
thousands  of  speeches  and  ten  thousands  of  col 
umns  of  newspaper  exposure — in  fact,  the  whole 

C  38   ] 


AMERICAN  LIFE 

community  had  to  be  laboriously  worked  up  to  a 
state  of  excitement  bordering  on  hysteria  or  epi 
lepsy  to  get  that  thief  put  in  jail  and  his  gang 
turned  out  of  office.  Even  then,  how  long  did  the 
gang  stay  out? 

The  men  who  formed  this  complicated  and  deli 
cately  balanced  government  had  no  notion  of  the 
conceit  prevailing  nowadays  about  its  universal 
applicability,  or  even  about  universal  participation 
here  in  its  conduct.  In  their  day  the  idea  that  it 
could  be  applied  to  the  so-called  inferior  races  was 
foreign  not  only  to  their  convictions,  but  even  their 
speculations.  They  simply  did  not  think  of  the 
notion  or  fancy  it  worth  talking  about.  They  never 
dreamed  of  applying  our  form  of  government  to 
the  native  races  of  America;  and  as  to  the  blacks, 
they  did  n't  imagine  it  needful  to  mention  them  as 
an  exception — so  unthinkable  was  it  to  the  major 
ity  that  the  blacks  should  be  included — when  they 
solemnly  declared  that  all  men  were  born  free  and 
equal,  and  then  went  on  calmly  buying  and  selling 
slaves  and  enacting  fugitive  slave  laws  just  as  usual. 
Not  until  1865  was  it  even  established  throughout 
the  United  States  that  every  man,  black  or  white, 
has  the  right  to  sell  his  own  labor;  and  in  1 902,  in 
Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  there  were  still  found 
a  great  many  persons,  including  a  pitiful  number 
of  exceptionally  ignorant  or  emotional  clergymen, 
and  some  people  called  statesmen,  who  considered 
such  a  right  on  the  part  of  some  white  men  so 
doubtful  that  they  were  not  ashamed  to  urge,  for 

£   39  1 


ORGANIZATION  IN 

the  sake  of  peace  and  coal,  that  it  should  be  sub 
mitted  to  arbitration. 

Well,  in  spite  of  these  defects  and  limitations, 
this  government  of  ours  has,  after  all,  accom 
plished  in  its  short  career  a  very  respectable  work 
in  the  world.  The  magnitude  and  myriad-sided 
development  of  this  work  have  been  recited  by 
many  an  eloquent  voice  and  pen,  at  home  and 
abroad,  though  nowhere  more  persuasively  and 
effectively  than  by  an  old  citizen  of  Pittsburg,  in 
a  book  called  "Triumphant  Democracy."  That 
clear  eye  saw  and  proclaimed  the  triumph  in  1886. 
Since  then  the  whole  world  has  come  to  recognize 
the  young  Republic  as  the  very  Samson  among 
the  nations  which  Mr.  Carnegie  then  depicted.  But 
if  the  things  we  have  been  saying  are  so,  if  they 
have  any  foundation  whatever,  if  our  government 
does  in  any  measure  have  these  defects,  then  the 
old  question  of  the  Philistines  comes  up  with  insist 
ent  force — "Wherein  lies  its  great  strength?" 

To  the  answer  to  that  question  and  the  reasons 
for  the  answer  I  think  it  timely  to  ask  considera 
tion.  If  our  form  of  government  is  unusually  ex 
pensive  and  dilatory  and  liable  to  go  wrong  with 
out  eternal  vigilance  and  perpetual  agitation;  if  it 
is  often  found  so  much  worse  than  other  forms  in 
executive  efficiency,  in  economy,  in  promptness  of 
action,  and  in  continuity  of  policy,  what  makes  it 
better? 

The  answer  has  become  a  truism.  Its  strength 
lies  in  the  quality  of  man  it  develops.  The  real 

C  40  1 


AMERICAN  LIFE 

merit  is  not  in  the  machinery,  but  in  the  skilled 
intelligence  absolutely  required  to  frame  and  to 
work  it;  in  the  combination  of  respect  for  author 
ity  on  the  one  hand  with  training  in  individual  ini 
tiative  on  the  other,  which  this  work  brings  out  and 
which  the  government  has  thus  far  scrupulously 
and  religiously  guarded. 

We  brought  the  respect  for  authority  from  the 
birthplace  of  the  common  law;  and  in  proportion 
as  harshness  from  its  officers  wras  resented  in  the 
old  home,  in  like  proportion  the  law  itself  was 
instinctively  elevated  into  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day 
and  of  fire  by  night  in  the  wilderness  of  the  New 
World.  We  found  the  initiative  in  the  necessities 
of  an  untamed  continent;  we  were  driven  to  it, 
shut  up  to  it  at  every  turn — in  the  imperative  be 
ginning  of  orderly  self-government  at  a  thousand 
isolated  spots — in  the  long  protracted  struggle  with 
wild  lands,  wild  beasts,  and  wild  men, — till  it  be 
came  the  inheritance  of  the  race ;  till  under  its  stim 
ulus  men  found  their  solitary  way  through  track 
less  woods  to  make  lonely  clearings  or  start  fron 
tier  settlements  across  the  Alleghenies,  through 
trackless  prairies  to  possess  the  Mississippi  Val 
ley,  through  alkali  deserts  to  wrest  their  gold  from 
the  mountains,  and  at  last  through  the  Sierras  to 
scatter  up  and  down  the  enchanted  shore  of  the 
Pacific.  To  such  a  continental  conquest  of  nature 
and  of  men  have  those  two  traits  of  the  Fathers 
brought  us — their  respect  for  authority  and  their 
widest  freedom  of  individual  initiative.  These,  with 

C   41    ] 


ORGANIZATION  IN 

the  original  vigor  of  the  stock,  have  made  Ameri 
cans  what  they  are;  and  by  consequence  have 
made  this  blessed  country  of  ours  the  joy  and 
pride  and  hope  of  our  lives.  To  harm  either  is  crim 
inal —  whether  to  breakdown  respect  for  author 
ity  by  unlawful  combinations,  tricky  evasions,  and 
open  defiance  of  order,  or  to  cramp  the  widest 
freedom  of  the  individual  in  any  lawful  enterprise 
or  labor  anywhere.  Whoever  or  whatever  now 
dares  to  interfere  with  the  permanent  union  of 
these  two  traits  and  their  continued  development 
in  the  American  life  is  an  enemy  to  the  Republic 
— whether  known  as  Political  Boss,  or  as  Trust, 
or  as  Trades  Union. 

But  let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  Nobody  can 
doubt  the  need  in  politics  of  appliances  for  finding 
and  enforcing  the  will  of  the  party  majority.  No 
body  can  question  the  economies  and  public  bene 
fits  in  business  from  great  consolidations  of  capital. 
Nobody  can  deny  the  right  of  labor  to  combine  for 
higher  wages  and  shorter  hours  and  healthful  con 
ditions  of  work.  I  mean  no  arraignment  of  organ 
ization  itself,  either  in  politics  or  finance  or  labor 
—  only  of  that  tyrannical  organization,  that  unre- 
publican  organization,  that  abandonment  of  the  un 
derlying  essentials  of  democratic  success  and  that 
reversion  to  the  principles  of  an  absolute  monar 
chy  or  a  military  despotism ,  which  refuses  to  recog 
nize  that  it  has  reached  the  limits  of  its  own  right 
when  it  invades  the  rights  of  others,  and  so  saps  the 
very  springs  that  have  lifted  us  to  this  floodtide  of 

C  42  3 


AMERICAN  LIFE 

national  prosperity.  Indeed,  instead  of  opposing  I 
appeal  for  organization,  but  only  for  organization 
of  the  kind  which  a  distinguished  ex-President  of 
the  United  States  once  commended  in  a  persuasive 
address1 — the  organization  which  seeks  coopera 
tion  instead  of  the  one  that  suppresses  individual 
judgment  and  demands  exclusive  control;  the  or 
ganization  which  aims  at  the  helpful  union  of  men 
of  like  minds  and  interests,  or  the  needful  strength 
to  meet  com  petition,  not  at  monopoly ;  which  minds 
its  own  business,  and  is  willing  that  whoever  is 
not  with  it  should  have  equal  liberty,  in  this  land  of 
liberty,  to  do  the  same. 

Such  an  organization  does  not  exclude  young 
lawyers  from  references  unless  they  have  made 
their  peace  with  the  men  whonominatedthejudges. 
It  does  not  keep  all  rising  young  men  out  of  the 
public  service  unless  pledged  to  support  the  bills 
the  boss  wants,  or  to  protect  or  punish  the  corpo 
rations  as  he  may  direct.  It  does  not  evade  state 
laws,  circumvent  national  boards,  and  conceal  its 
operations  alike  from  the  state  that  charters  and 
the  stockholders  that  support  it,  in  efforts  to  mo 
nopolize  business  or  to  crush  competition.  It  does 
not  declare  that  nobody  shall  labor  or  sell  the  prod 
ucts  of  lawful  labor  save  on  its  terms  or  under  its 
orders.  It  is  cooperative  and  beneficent,  not  restric 
tive  and  monopolistic;  it  protects  its  own  rights 
without  harm  to  the  rights  of  others,  and  instead 

1  Hon.  Grover  Cleveland,  on  Founder's  Day,  Camegie  Institute,  Pitts- 
burg,  November  7,  1901. 

c  43  n 


ORGANIZATION  IN 

of  narrowing  the  doors  to  young  men  and  checking 
aspiration,  it  maintains  the  old  glory  of  the  land, 
the  freest  opportunity  for  all,  with  hope  of  the 
richest  rewards  for  the  worthiest. 

Such  organization  knows  the  spirit  of  this  people 
and  has  learned  the  secret  of  their  triumphs.  It 
stimulates  instead  of  checking  the  alertness,  the 
ingenuity,  the  self-reliance,  the  independence,  the 
courageous  and  indomitable  ambition,  which  from 
the  very  beginning  in  this  land  have  created  and 
compelled  that  individual  initiative  of  which  we 
have  been  speaking.  In  politics  it  does  not  crush, 
on  the  contrary,  it  welcomes  the  democratic  spirit 
in  party  councils  and  the  freest  debate  as  the  surest 
road  to  political  harmony.  In  business  it  does  not 
dread,  on  the  contrary,  it  expects  and  prepares  for 
competition :  it  does  not  resist  and  bewail,  on  the 
contrary,  it  rejoices  in  the  power  of  growing  capi 
tal  which  is  the  offspring  of  intelligence  and  thrift, 
and  the  begetter  of  public  prosperity.  In  the  in 
dustrial  world  it  does  not  degrade  labor  into  a  dull, 
mechanical  level  of  limited  and  uniform  production ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  inspires  the  individual  work 
man  with  the  certainty  of  rewards  in  proportion 
to  his  skill  and  his  right  living.  It  preserves  for 
all,  in  public  life  or  in  private,  in  the  ranks  of  capi 
tal  or  of  labor,  the  theory  of  our  government  from 
the  beginning — not  against  classes,  as  the  dema 
gogues  tell  you,  but  against  fixed  classes ;  it  main 
tains,  as  the  priceless  distinction  of  our  social  state, 
the  fluidity  and  easy  transfusion  of  classes,  giving 

C  44   H 


AMERICAN  LIFE 

constantly  to  the  intelligent  and  industrious  in  any 
one  the  hope  of  rising  by  their  intelligence  and 
industry  to  any  other. 

Years  ago  a  laboring  man  on  strike  said  to  me: 
"There  is  no  use  any  longer  in  talking  to  us  about 
saving  and  rising  out  of  our  class;  about  ever 
becoming  an  employer  and  one's  own  master. 
That  stage  of  the  world  has  passed.  I  and  my  fel 
lows  must  be  day  laborers  to  the  end.  We  must  fix 
our  eyes  solely  on  one  thing,  the  day's  wages,  and 
make  common  cause,  so  that  the  slowest  or  poor 
est  workman  may  be  put  to  no  disadvantage  by 
the  skill  or  industry  of  his  fellows,  in  getting  bread 
for  his  children/'  It  is  the  most  dangerous  delusion 
of  the  times,  undermining  the  foundations  alike  of 
industrial  progress  and  of  public  honesty;  and  its 
only  logical  outcome  is  either  a  permanent  and 
unrepublican  fixity  of  classes  or  the  hopeless  Dead 
Sea  of  Socialism. 

The  same  declaration  about  the  impossibility  of 
rising  under  existing  conditions  was  heard  in  New 
York  when  a  young  boatman  named  Cornelius 
Vanderbilt  was  beginning  to  run  a  little  ferry  to 
Staten  Island.  It  was  heard  in  Washington  when  a 
young  portrait  painter  named  Morse  was  develop 
ing  the  telegraph.  It  was  heard  in  my  own  calling 
when  Bennett  and  Greeley  and  Raymond  started, 
and  heard  again  when  they  died.  It  was  heard  in 
Pittsburg  when  Andrew  Carnegie  was  a  messen 
ger  boy,  and  it  was  heard  again  when  he  retired  to 
begin  giving  away  his  three  or  four  hundred  mil- 

[45 : 


ORGANIZATION  IN  AMERICAN  LIFE 

lions.  But  after  Vanderbilt  came  Scott  and  Cassatt, 
Huntington,  Morgan,  Hill,  and  Harriman;  after 
Morse  came  Cyrus  Field  and  Edison  and  West- 
inghouse  and  Bell  and  Marconi.  The  development 
of  the  newspapers  did  not  stop  with  Bennett  and 
Greeley  and  Raymond;  the  development  of  the 
iron  industry  has  not  been  closed  by  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  United  States  Steel,  and  Schwab  is  not 
the  last  day  laborer  to  rise  from  the  iron  mills.  The 
chances  for  the  young  man  are  and  must  be  kept 
as  good  to-day  as  they  ever  were ;  in  fact,  they  are 
and  must  be  made  as  much  better  as  the  scale 
on  which  this  Western  World  is  moving  grows 
yearly  and  monthly  more  colossal.  But  now,  as  in 
all  past  times,  with  political  managers  or  in  spite 
of  them,  with  the  trusts  or  in  spite  of  them,  with 
trades  unions  or  in  spite  of  them,  the  chances  are 
to  him  that  can  see  and  seize  them, — the  tools 
are  to  him  who  can  use  them.  "A  man 's  a  man  for 
a'  that/' 


THE  DANGER-POINT  IN  IMMIGRATION 


THE  DANGER-POINT  IN  IMMIGRATION 

EVERYBODY  knows  the  old,  old  story  about 
the  resolutions  at  the  first  town  meeting  in 
New  England:  "Whereas, The  earth  is  the  Lord's, 
and  whereas,  We  are  the  Lord's  people;  there 
fore,  Resolved, "etc.  We  could  pass  that  resolution 
to-day  in  any  town  meeting  in  the  country,  nem. 
con.  What  is  more,  the  conquest  of  nature  and  of 
man  achieved  from  one  side  of  this  continent  to 
the  other  since  the  "Mayflower"  landed,  and  the 
happy  deliverance  thus  far  out  of  all  our  perils, 
give  the  American  people  warrant  for  believing  in 
that  resolution ;  and  they  do  believe  in  it,  exactly 
as  they  believe  in  sunrise  or  in  the  star-spangled 
banner.  Well,  then,  if  we  are  a  new  chosen  people 
in  this  new  land  of  promise,  is  there  any  danger 
that  we,  too,  may  be  outnumbered  and  led  astray, 
as  were  the  chosen  people  of  old?  The  Puritan 
conquered  the  land  from  the  Indians.  His  sons 
conquered  it  from  the  French  and  the  Dutch. 
His  grandsons  conquered  it  from  the  English.  His 
great-grandsons  conquered  it  from  slavery.  Can 
their  descendants  conquer  it  from  itself? 

Before  we  make  any  hasty  answer  on  that  ques 
tion,  let  us  remember  that  those  descendants  are 
now  in  a  minority  in  the  land  conquered  and  pre 
served  by  their  ancestors.  They  are  in  a  minority, 
even  if  we  reinforce  them  with  all  later  immigra 
tion  from  the  same  stock.  This  is  no  longer  a  Puri 
tan  people.  It  is  no  longer  a  combination  even  of 


THE  DANGER-POINT 

Puritan  and  Cavalier,  as  in  the  days  of  the  Revolu 
tion.  The  proof  is  not  clear  that  it  is  any  longer  an 
Anglo-Saxon  people.  We  must  take  in  the  whole 
Indo-Germanic  family  to  be  sure  of  a  mere  major 
ity  now  in  the  new  world  which  we  still  think  of  as 
simply  the  outgrowth  of  the  seed  piously  planted 
by  British  pioneers  at  Plymouth  and  at  Jamestown. 
We  have  accustomed  ourselves  to  consider  im 
migration  as  a  sure  index  of  national  power  and 
guarantee  of  national  prosperity,  and  I  heartily 
join  in  every  word  of  grateful  recognition  for  the 
marvellous  results  it  has  brought  and  is  still  bring 
ing  us.  But  have  we  adequately  considered  the  ex 
traordinary  change  in  the  character  of  our  immi 
gration?  Have  we  noted,  for  example,  where  our 
greatest  accession  came  from  in  1902,  or  in  the 
year  preceding?  The  largest  immigration  into  all 
the  ports  of  the  United  States  in  both  years  was 
from  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  in  lesser  degree  from 
other  parts  of  Italy ;  and  in  1903  there  were  fifty- 
two  thousand  more  of  them  than  the  year  before. 
And  the  next  largest  immigration?  The  second  on 
the  list  for  both  years  were  the  Croats,  Slavs,  and 
other  races  of  Austria-Hungary,  and  there  were 
thirty-four  thousand  more  of  them  in  1903  than 
the  year  before.  And  whence  came  the  third  largest 
number,  pressing  hard  on  the  heels  of  the  Sicilians 
and  the  Croats?  From  the  Empire  of  Russia,  and 
there  were  nearly  twenty-nine  thousand  more  of 
them  in  1 903  than  the  year  before.  China  and  Japan 
sent  us  as  many  as  England  and  Scotland  in  1902. 


IN  IMMIGRATION 

This  change  in  the  sources  is  not  due  to  any  dim 
inution  in  the  volume  of  the  human  stream  per 
petually  pouring  upon  our  shores.  It  is  not  that  the 
reservoir  is  low  and  that  so  we  are  draining  dregs. 
On  the  contrary,  our  total  immigration  for  1903 
was  over  a  hundred  thousand  greater  than  for  any 
other  year  ever  recorded  in  our  history,  and  more 
than  two-thirds  of  all  the  steerage  immigrants 
came  from  the  three  countries  first  named — Italy, 
Austria-Hungary,  and  Russia.  As  compared  with 
either  of  these  the  German  immigration  was  but 
a  fifth  as  great  and  that  of  Ireland  still  less.  Little 
Greece  sent  us  between  a  third  and  a  half  as  many 
as  Ireland. 

Look  at  another  aspect  of  it.  In  1 900  the  total 
white  population  of  the  United  States  of  any  stock 
that  had  been  in  this  country  more  than  one  gen 
eration  was  not  quite  forty-one  millions.  Not  only 
were  the  representatives  of  the  Pilgrims  com 
pletely  submerged,  but  even  when  reinforced  by 
all  the  whites  of  any  race  or  origin  that  had  been 
in  the  country  for  more  than  one  generation,  they 
came  within  six  millions  of  being  still  outnumbered 
by  the  later  comers  and  the  negroes.  In  New  York 
City  the  actual  foreign-born  population  is  37  per 
cent,  to  say  nothing  of  the  greater  number  born 
of  foreign  parents.  When  this  is  sometimes  flip 
pantly  dismissed  with  the  remark  that  New  York 
is  only  a  foreign  city  on  the  fringe  of  the  country 
anyway,  we  should  remember  that  the  tendency 
is  the  same  everywhere.  All  the  cities  of  twenty- 

51 


THE  DANGER-POINT 

five  thousand  inhabitants  or  over  throughout  the 
United  States  contain  less  than  one-fifth  of  our 
native-born  population,  while  they  have  nearly 
one-half  the  whole  foreign-born  population  — 
more  than  half  of  the  Italians,  Poles,  Russians,  and 
Irish. 

For  seventeen  years  there  has  been  a  steady 
decline  in  immigration  from  the  lands  of  our  an 
cestors  and  of  their  kinsfolk — that  is  to  say,  from 
England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Wales,  Germany, 
Denmark,  and  Switzerland.  During  the  same  pe 
riod  there  has  been  a  steady  and  progressive  in 
crease  from  Italy,  Austria-Hungary, Russia,  Spain, 
Portugal,  Greece,  Belgium,  Roumania,  etc.  And, 
finally,  to  give  an  analysis  by  races  rather  than 
mere  nationalities,  28  per  cent  of  the  whole  immi 
gration  in  1902  was  Italian,  11  per  cent  of  it  was 
Polish,  9  per  cent  was  Hebrew,  and  15  per  cent 
was  Slovak,  Croatian,  Slavonian,  and  Magyar — 
these  races  thus  making  practically  two-thirds  of 
the  whole  immigration. 

We  have  emphatically  and  even  vociferously 
made  everybody  else,  from  all  over  the  world,  at 
home  in  our  Father's  house.  But  as  we  look  around 
at  the  variegated  throng,  do  we  always  feel  just  as 
much  at  home  ourselves?  I  will  yield  to  none  in 
reverence  for  our  ancestors  and  pride  in  the  work 
they  did.  But  perhaps  even  these  ancestors,  view 
ing  now  from  above,  as  we  love  to  think,  these 
scenes  of  their  glorious  achievements,  might  be 
better  pleased  with  imitation  than  with  praise,  and 


IN  IMMIGRATION 

might  think  it  as  important  for  us  to  preserve  their 
work  as  to  glorify  it.  And  so  I  venture  to  take  the 
past  for  granted.  The  men  who  made  New  Eng 
land  hold  securely  and  forever  a  page  resplen 
dent  as  any  in  the  world's  history.  The  govern 
ment  they  were  perhaps  the  most  potent  factors 
in  founding  has  developed  into  the  greatest  and 
most  powerful  agency  in  modern  civilization.  Let 
us  leave  it  at  that. 

I  ask,  then,  consideration  of  something  different 
and  more  pressing.  Are  we,  their  sons,  managing 
this  heritage  of  our  Fathers  so  as  to  further  their 
ends?  How  are  we  likely  to  leave  it  to  our  sons? 
Will  it  still  fulfil  the  purpose  of  those  great  men 
who,  according  to  the  eulogium  of  Mr.  Gladstone, 
struck  out  at  one  blow  the  most  perfect  form  of 
government  yet  devised  by  human  intelligence? 

A  common  notion  seems  to  be  that  their  real 
purpose  in  starting  this  government  was  a  mis 
sionary  one.  They  wanted,  as  our  stump  orators 
declaim  with  unction,  "to  make  America  spell 
Opportunity/'  So  interpreting  the  purpose  of  the 
Fathers,  we  have  developed  a  continent  in  order 
that,  first  of  all,  it  might  bestow  the  benefit  of 
their  and  our  labors,  in  the  shape  of  Opportunity , 
on  the  just  and  unjust,  on  the  fit  and  unfit,  of  every 
class  and  race  and  nativity  under  the  sun. 

We  did  n't  stop  at  trifles;  all  comers  were  long 
welcomed — not  merely  those  who  sought  a  land 
where  they  might  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  their  conscience,  or  those  others  whose 

[   53   ] 


THE  DANGER-POINT 

necessity  and  courage  led  them  to  the  struggles 
of  a  new  world  where  they  hoped  to  build  homes 
and  a  community  of  freemen  trained  under  Magna 
Charta,  like  the  land  and  the  homes  they  had  left. 
These,  to  be  sure,  were  gladly  received;  but  so 
also  were  the  ignorant,  the  depraved,  the  law 
breaker,  and  the  pauper,  the  man  who  proclaimed 
that  property  was  robbery  and  the  man  who  pro 
claimed  that  government  was  tyranny,  the  social 
ist,  the  communist,  and  the  anarchist — our  spa 
cious  doors  swung  in  ward  with  an  equal  hospitality 
for  all. 

Far  less  altruistic  was  the  homely  purpose  of 
the  plain,  unrhetorical  founders  of  the  Republic 
themselves.  "To  form  a  more  perfect  union, estab 
lish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide 
for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  wel 
fare  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  our 
selves  and  our  posterity, we  do  ordain  and  establish 
this  cons titution."  Who  says  we  took  the  only  or 
the  wisest  course  to  fulfil  this  high  purpose,  to 
discharge  with  fidelity  this  sacred  duty,  when  we 
flung  down  the  bars  to  men  who  knew  nothing 
of  liberty  or  of  justice  or  of  domestic  tranquillity? 

"To  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves 
and  our  posterity/'  Have  we  scrupulously  re 
membered  that  purpose  since  we  took  from  our 
Fathers  this  most  complicated  and  delicately  bal 
anced  government  ever  set  up  by  the  wit  of  man? 
It  was  designed  specifically  for  the  wants,  and  it 
taxed  in  its  conduct  the  ability,  of  a  race  second 

c  54  n 


IN  IMMIGRATION 

at  least  to  none  in  the  world,  a  race  trained  to  free 
institutions,  to  the  widest  individual  initiative,  and 
to  ordered  liberty  under  law  ever  since  Runny- 
mede.  We  invited  almost  without  discrimination 
every  immigrant  just  escaped  from  generations  of 
government  by  others,  and  in  turn  every  negro 
just  escaped  from  generations  of  slavery,  to  the 
same  power  with  ourselves  in  guiding  that  com 
plicated  and  delicately  balanced  machine.  We  neg 
lected  the  safeguards  of  the  Republic  held  essen 
tial  by  the  Fathers,  and  threw  away  one  after  an 
other  almost  every  requirement  they  had  main 
tained  in  the  thirteen  colonies  or  elsewhere,  for 
either  intelligence  or  character  or  thrift  among 
those  permitted  to  have  equal  voice  with  us  in 
framing  our  laws,  in  levying  our  taxes,  and  in  de 
termining  our  expenditures  and  our  general  policy. 

"To  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves 
and  our  posterity/'  Did  we  do  that,  when  under 
such  guidance  we  gradually  forgot  the  old  order 
of  march,  followed  as  faithfully  by  our  Fathers  as 
the  Israelites  followed  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day 
and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night, — the  Puritan  order 
of  march,  in  which  every  advance  was  fortified  first 
by  the  meeting-house  and  then  by  a  school- house, 
while  next  and  only  next  the  garrison,  fresh  from 
meeting-house  and  school-house,  went  into  town 
meeting? 

Well,  we  shall  never  grind  with  the  water  that 
has  passed  the  mill.  This  free  people  will  never 
take  away  the  welcome  we  have  given  to  the 

C  55  3 


THE  DANGER-POINT 

pauper  and  the  illiterate,  to  the  communist  and 
the  anarchist,  from  abroad  whom  we  have  already 
made  at  home  among  us ;  will  never  withdraw  the 
suffrage  from  the  man  who  now  has  it,  but  cannot 
read  his  ballot;  from  the  man  that  votes  without 
ever  paying  taxes,  or  from  the  man  that  has  been 
convicted  of  crime,  but  has  been  pardoned  out  just 
before  his  term  expired  in  order  that  he  may  again 
render  us  his  help  in  securing  the  blessings  of 
liberty  for  ourselves  and  for  our  posterity.  What 
is  done  is  beyond  recall ;  and  with  all  its  faults  the 
achievement  is  colossal  and  of  world- wide  benefi 
cence.  But  if,  in  the  onward  rush  of  this  magnifi 
cent  development,  no  great  harm  has  yet  resulted 
— if,  indeed,  good  has  come  because  of,  or  in  spite 
of,  our  having  so  largely  lost  sight  for  the  time  of 
the  purpose  declared  in  the  Constitution — is  it  wise 
to  continue  indefinitely  on  the  changed  course? 

Grant  that  thus  far,  as  we  cast  our  drag-net 
over  all  lands  and  classes  and  races,  and  make 
haste  to  divide  with  them  on  equal  terms  the  rule 
in  our  Father's  house,  we  have  still  been  able  to 
leaven  the  lump — not  wholly,  but  measurably  and 
beyond  expectation.  Nevertheless,  are  we  sure 
that  as  the  lump  grows  larger  the  leaven  from 
our  relatively  diminishing  numbers  will  still  hold 
out?  Can  the  nation  deal  so  much  better  than  Wall 
Street  with  huge  masses  of  undigested  securities? 
Or  is  the  time  approaching  when,  instead  of  con 
tinuing,  with  the  amazing  success  of  the  past,  to 
assimilate  these  incongruous  and  heterogeneous 

n  56  3 


IN  IMMIGRATION 

additions  to  our  body  politic,  we  may  find  that  they 
are  beginning  to  assimilate  us? 

Are  we  then  really  taking  a  safe  course  to  pre 
serve  the  blessings  of  liberty  for  ourselves  and  for 
our  posterity  when  we  hesitate  now  to  sift  out  of 
our  immigration  not  merely  the  pauper  and  anar 
chist  and  the  poor  Chinaman,  but,  with  less  invidi 
ous  discrimination,  more  of  the  notoriously  unde 
sirable  elements;  or  when  we  hesitate  to  exclude 
peremptorily  from  the  suffrage — national,  state, 
or  municipal — any  newcomer  who  cannot  read 
the  laws  before  he  votes  for  lawmakers,  and  who 
does  not  pay  taxes  himself  when  he  votes  taxes 
upon  others? 

Shall  we  find  that  safe  course  by  roaming  the 
oceans  to  drag  in  semi-tropical  and  revolutionary 
communities,  to  be  made  states  in  the  American 
Union,  equal  from  the  start  with  ourselves,  with 
sometimes,  perhaps,  a  balance  of  power  that  may 
enable  them  to  govern  us  and  the  land  of  our 
Fathers?  Such  questions  have  burst  upon  us  too 
suddenly  out  of  recent  expansion  to  justify  at  the 
outset  harsh  criticism  of  any  rash  or  ill-considered 
proposals  that  may  rise  to  the  surface  in  the  first 
froth  of  public  discussion.  But  I  venture  to  predict 
that  the  time  will  come  within  the  lives  of  many 
of  us,  when  the  man  who  shall  propose  the  incor 
poration  as  a  state  into  this  government  of  the 
United  States  of  America  of  any  island  of  the  sea, 
the  Philippines,  the  Sandwich  Islands,  or  Porto 
Rico,  or  Cuba,  will  be  hunted  from  political  life  as 

n  57  D 


THE  DANGER-POINT 

a  public  enemy,  whether  he  be  animated  merely 
by  lingering  reminiscences  of  the  filibusters  and 
the  slavery  propaganda,  or  whether  he  represents 
a  sugar  trust  in  Wall  Street  or  a  sagebrush  trust 
in  the  United  States  Senate. 

Are  we  finding  that  safe  course  when  we  hold 
public  meetings  for  an  immigrant  detained  and 
about  to  be  deported,  to  protest  against  the  en 
forcement  of  the  law  in  his  case,  since  the  poor 
man  was  merely  under  contract  for  preaching  an 
archy  (or,  to  give  an  explanation  lately  made  by 
some  of  his  friends,  was  merely  an  anarchist  under 
contract  to  visit  trades  unions ) ;  while  we  have 
not  one  word  of  protest  against  the  arrest  and 
deportation  of  a  laborer  when  he  is  guilty — the 
wretch!  — of  coming  under  a  contract  to  earn  an 
honest  living  by  honest  toil?  Away  with  the  hon 
est  workman!  we  exclaim;  his  stay  might  help  to 
free  white  labor  and  to  weaken  the  padlocks  on 
the  close  shops ;  but  as  for  the  preacher  of  anarchy, 
how  dare  you  in  this  free  country  interfere  with 
his  liberty  of  opinion  ? 

Are  we  taking  that  safe  course  to  preserve  the 
blessings  of  liberty  for  ourselves  and  our  posterity 
if,  after  fighting  four  years  to  free  negro  labor  at 
the  South,  we  now,  under  this  new  guidance,  per 
mit  organizations  unknown  to  the  law  to  enslave 
white  labor  in  every  building  and  manufacturing 
centre  at  the  North?  Are  we  following  that  safe 
course  if  a  workman,  however  intelligent  or  indus 
trious  or  competent  and  deserving,  is  deprived  of 

c  ss  n 


IN  IMMIGRATION 

the  right  to  earn  his  living  on  terms  mutually  sat 
isfactory  to  himself  and  to  his  employers  ?  Are  we 
following  that  safe  course  if  an  honest  artisan  can 
be  driven  from  his  employment  and  denied  work 
anywhere  at  his  trade  because  he  obeyed  the  call 
of  the  governor  of  his  state,  on  the  militia  of  the 
state,  to  maintain  order  in  the  state? 

Well,  we  have  seen  no  occasion,  our  Fathers 
have  seen  no  occasion,  in  which  in  the  end  some 
inspiration  did  not  bring  the  American  people  to 
a  sober  and  sane  second  thought.  We  will  not 
doubt  that  somehow  in  some  time  these  dangers, 
too,  will  be  successfully  met.  But  neither  will  we 
doubt  that  if  we  still  refuse  to  sift  our  immigration ; 
if  we  still  refuse  to  require  from  newcomers  some 
intelligence  and  some  character  and  thrift  before 
we  ask  them  to  help  us  conduct  our  own  govern 
ment;  if  we  neglect  to  hinder  the  plan  of  politi 
cians  for  gathering  in  new  states  in  the  American 
Union  from  the  Caribbean  Sea,  from  the  Chinese 
Sea,  or  from  Polynesia;  if  we  refuse  to  protect 
individual  initiative  and  fail  to  keep  white  labor 
free  at  home;  if  we  persist  in  making  this  land  an 
asylum  for  the  anarchist  and  outcasts  from  every 
other  civilized  land  in  the  world,  the  common 
sewer  for  Christendom, — if  we  still  persist  in  all 
this,  then,  to  the  imperfect  vision  of  the  human 
eye,  the  path  of  our  unexampled  progress  seems 
likely  some  day  to  lead  into  hopeless  entangle 
ments  and  end  in  an  impasse,  from  which  advance 
is  improbable. 

C  59  ^ 


THE  DANGER-POINT  IN  IMMIGRATION 

Yet  so  the  dwellers  in  the  sun,  whom  some  fan 
ciful  astronomers  have  been  lately  imagining,  must 
be  hopeless  as  they  see  the  huge  spots  which  from 
time  to  time  roll  over  and  envelop  it,  and  must 
conclude,  when  buried  in  these  sinister  shadows, 
that  the  end  of  all  things  is  approaching.  At  that 
moment  of  deepest  gloom,  from  our  more  distant 
point  of  view,  such  shadows  become  trivial  and 
transient,  and  out  of  them  all  shines  forth  again 
the  resplendent  orb  of  day,  effulgent,  benignant, 
without  a  cloud  to  dim  its  glory  and  radiant  with 
the  hope  of  the  world  and  the  ages. 

Spots  may  seem  to  dim  the  lustre  of  our  Puritan 
prospect  now,  clouds  may  roll  about  the  national 
path,  but  where  to  us  it  sometimes  appears  to 
narrow  into  pitfalls  or  impassable  morasses,  the 
serene  vision  of  the  men  of  the  "  Mayflower," 
from  their  cerulean  heights,  may  already  perceive 
it  broadening  again  into  a  highway, — the  true 
highway  of  the  God  of  our  Fathers,  along  which 
He  led  a  people  He  really  chose,  from  Plymouth 
thus  far,  and,  if  they  but  hearken,  will  lead  them 
still. 


C   60 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

i 

NO  politics  can  be  known  in  the  embassy. 
Democrats  or  Republicans,  Independents, 
Prohibitionists,  Populists,  Woman  Suffragists,  or 
miscellaneous  reformers,  foreign  voters  or  native, 
candidates  defeated  or  candidates  elected,  all  are 
American  citizens,  all  support  the  President  and 
the  government  the  embassy  represents,  and  all 
are  alike  in  their  right  to  regard  the  American 
ambassador  as  their  public  servant. 

When  William  Jennings  Bryan  expressed  his 
thanks  for  treatment  at  our  embassies  which  was 
plainly  due  to  a  man  whom  nearly  half  the  Ameri 
can  people  had  more  than  once  approved  for  their 
highest  office,  and  when  the  President  responded 
that,  if  any  ambassador  had  failed  to  extend  such 
treatment  in  such  a  case,  his  shrift  would  have 
been  short,  there  was  a  fit  recognition  of  what  has 
been  the  uniform  policy  of  our  government  and 
what  it  should  always  remain.  No  ambassador  has 
the  right  to  carry  his  politics  on  the  outward  voy 
age  beyond  Sandy  Hook.  From  that  moment  he 
represents  the  President  and  the  government  of 
the  whole  American  people,  and  the  service  he  is 
sent  to  render  is  due  alike  to  all. 

I  may  venture  to  suggest  that  the  converse  ought 
to  be  true, — that  there  ought  to  be  no  politics  at 
home  in  dealing  with  the  embassy's  work.  It  is  of 
course  a  matter  of  plain  national  interest,  not  to 

c  63 : 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

speak  of  national  self-respect,  that  a  diplomatic 
officer,  like  his  colleagues  of  the  army  and  navy, 
while  engaged  in  active  service  is  entitled  to  sup 
port  from  home,  and  should  be  held  secure  from 
attacks  in  the  rear.  Is  it  not  just  as  plain  that  his 
work  should  be  passed  upon  solely  on  national 
grounds,  and  held  equally  secure  from  mere  par 
tisan  attack? 

There  are  other  kinds  of  attack — attacks  from 
the  front  and  by  friends — which  a  diplomat  may 
have  to  encounter.  Here  is  a  great  London  news 
paper,  describing  in  detail  the  trials  of  "A  Perse 
cuted  Ambassador/'  "  Why/'  it  frankly  asks, 

'  Why  are  we  so  brutal  to  the  American  ambassador  ? 
We  turn  him  into  a  sort  of  lecturer  and  demand  from 
him  at  every  turn  speeches  and  yet  more  speeches,  ver 
satility  and  yet  more  versatility.  We  launch  him  on  an 
oratorical  tour  from  Land's  End  to  John  o'  Groats,  in 
placid  forgetfulness  that  he  may  after  all  have  some  busi 
ness  of  his  own  or  his  country's  to  attend  to.  One  can 
imagine  Whitelaw  Reid  at  this  moment,  frantically  pre 
paring  himself  for  the  fray  by  re-reading  all  the  standard 
authors  he  has  forgotten,  composing  character  sketches 
of  famous  Americans  by  the  bushel,  working  up  local 
color,  and  dicta  ting  not  less  than  one  address  a  day !  Only 
by  thus  arming  beforehand  will  he  be  able,  when  he  has 
settled  down  among  us,  to  feel  himself  a  free  man." 

Now  please  to  observe  under  what  sort  of  a  cross 
fire  the  hapless  ambassador  is  placed.  There  are 
the  demands,  and  yet  all  these  expected  speeches 
are  in  violation  of  the  fixed  and  long-standing  rule 

C   64  H 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

of  our  own  State  Department!  Here,  if  I  may  ven 
ture  on  the  indiscretion  of  quoting  it, — here  are 
its  precise  terms: 

"It  is  forbidden  to  diplomatic  officers  to  participate  in 
any  manner  in  the  political  concerns  of  the  country  of 
their  residence  ;  and  they  are  directed  especially  to  refrain 
from  public  expressions  of  opinion  upon  local  political 
or  other  questions  arising  within  their  jurisdiction.  It  is 
deemed  advisable  to  extend  a  similar  prohibition  against 
public  addresses, unless  upon  exceptional  festal  occasions, 
in  the  country  of  official  residence.  Even  upon  such  oc 
casions  any  reference  to  political  issues,  pending  in  the 
United  States  or  elsewhere, should  be  carefully  avoided. ' ' 

Really,  however  much  appearances  may  some 
times  tend  to  a  contrary  view,  the  work  of  speech- 
making  is  not  the  chief  duty  for  which  the  country 
sends  out  its  ambassador.  There  are  graver  tasks, 
and  by  the  record  as  to  them  the  final  judgment 
is  made  up.  We  have  long  been  admirably  served 
in  London.  Nevertheless,  Reverdy  Johnson,  and 
James  Russell  Lowell,  and  Edward  J.  Phelps,  and 
Robert  T.  Lincoln,  and  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  and 
then  the  man  who  passed  from  the  ambassador 
ship  to  the  front  rank  of  modern  secretaries,  John 
Hay,  and  the  laurelled  and  radiant  Choate,  not  to 
speak  of  others,  all,  more  or  less  in  spite  of  them 
selves,  drifted  into  becoming  known  as  occasional 
and  always  successful  speech-makers. 

Yet  the  brilliancy  of  the  whole  distinguished 
array  has  not  dimmed  the  fame  of  the  silent  Benja 
min  Franklin,  agent  in  London  for  the  colonies,  or 

C  65  n 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

those  earlier  Ministers  for  the  Republic,  John  Jay 
and  Charles  Francis  Adams, — the  one  of  whom  by 
a  great  and  unpopular  act  of  statesmanship  helped 
the  tottering  infant  nation  to  its  feet,  while  the  other 
guarded  it  with  austere  fidelity  and  splendid  suc 
cess  throughout  as  great  dangers  as  it  has  encoun 
tered  since  Valley  Forge.  And  now,  can  any  one 
recall  a  notable  public  speech  either  of  them  ever 
made  in  the  whole  course  of  his  diplomatic  career? 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  an  ambassador  cannot  live 
on  speeches  alone! 

At  one  of  the  Gridiron  Club  dinners  in  Wash 
ington  a  newspaper  man  was  placed  under  hyp 
notic  influence,  told  that  he  was  the  American  Am 
bassador  to  the  Court  of  St.  James,  and  instructed 
to  make  an  after-dinner  speech  for  a  London  ban 
quet.  He  promptly  began:  "Gentlemen,  blood  is 
thicker  than  water.  Oh,  how  we  love  our  kinsfolk 
in  the  land  of  our  ancestors.  Hands  across  the  sea. 
Common  language,  common  blood,  common  liter 
ature,  the  supremacy  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  We 
are  brothers  all.  Three  cheers  for  the  king/' 

Well,  those  are  good  phrases.  We  have  heard 
them  before.  They  were  right  and  there  is  no  harm 
in  using  them  again.  But  as  means  for  persuading 
the  people  of  the  two  countries  to  mutual  good 
will,  they  have  served  their  purpose,  and  have 
ceased  to-day  to  be  a  part  of  the  working-tools  of 
diplomacy  on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic.  There  was 
a  time  in  our  own  history  when  some  of  us  thought 
a  Philadelphia  arm  in  arm  Convention  a  useful 

C  66  n 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

object-lesson.  In  that  day  and  under  those  circum 
stances  it  did  serve  its  purpose.  But  nobody  thinks 
it  needful  now  to  see  South  Carolina  and  Massa 
chusetts  delegates  walking  arm  in  arm  into  a  na 
tional  assemblage,  in  order  to  be  convinced  that 
they  feel  and  know  they  belong  to  the  same  undis- 
solved  and  indissoluble  Union.  So  nobody  needs 
now  to  be  told  of  clasping  hands  across  the  sea, 
or  of  common  blood,  or  a  common  literature,  to 
know  that  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  do  inevitably  sustain  peculiar 
relations  to  each  other  not  held  by  either  with 
any  other  nation,  that  they  are  now  on  very  good 
terms,  better  than  for  over  a  century,  and  that  from 
this  time  on,  the  better  they  know  each  other,  and 
the  more  frequent  and  intimate  their  intercourse, 
the  better  and  more  durable  will  be  their  good 
understanding. 

Some  one  spoke  the  other  day  of  the  duty  of 
our  embassy  as  consisting  merely  in  "jollying  the 
English/'  In  so  far  as  this  means  that,  whenever 
an  ambassador  has  to  say  anything,  he  should  say  a 
friendly  thing  if  he  can,  the  remark  is  well  enough. 
Surely  the  meanest  disposition  in  the  world  is  that 
which  grudges  uttering  the  truth  because  it  may 
be  pleasant  to  others  to  hear  it. 

But  there  is  a  duty  of  an  ambassador  more  im 
portant  even  than  promoting  goodwill — highly 
important  as  we  all  consider  that  to  be.  The  very 
people  and  government  to  whom  he  is  accred 
ited  would  recognize  the  superior  and  imperative 

C  67  3 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

nature  of  this  other  duty.  An  ambassador  is  sent 
to  look  after  the  interests  of  his  own  country.  Happy 
his  lot  if  the  interests  of  the  country  that  sends  him 
and  those  of  the  country  to  which  he  is  sent  are  not 
conflicting.  That  is  an  ideal  state,  but  it  is  not  to  be 
counted  on  anywhere  definitely  as  a  permanence. 
If  unhappily  these  interests  are  ever  found  to  con 
flict,  the  most  injurious  and  the  most  treacherous 
fault  an  ambassador  can  commit  is  to  sacrifice  or 
imperil  the  interests  of  his  own  country,  whether 
merely  through  a  judgment  warped  by  the  subtle 
influence  of  his  foreign  associations,  or  in  the  de 
liberate  and  sordid  hope  of  remaining  persona  grata 
in  the  country  in  which  he  temporarily  resides. 

We  are  sometimes  liable  to  a  curious  self-decep 
tion  in  such  matters.  We  assume  that  a  man  is  ne 
cessarily  succeeding  when  the  country  to  which  he 
is  sent  praises  him.  It  is,  of  course,  most  agree 
able  to  us  to  hear  such  praise;  yet  we  never  base 
our  estimate  of  any  other  agent's  success  in  the 
agreements  we  send  him  to  make  for  us  entirely 
on  the  pleasure  the  opposite  side  shows  about  his 
work.  Long  ago  I  have  heard  of  diplomatic  ser 
vants  enshrined  in  the  popular  regard  at  home  be 
cause  of  a  foreign  approval  which  found  no  echo 
in  the  secret  records  of  our  State  Department.  We 
can  never  afford  to  lose  sight  of  two  facts  about 
the  real  business  of  our  ambassadors:  that  their 
first  duty  is  to  look  after  the  interests  of  their  own 
country,  and  that  the  greatest  of  these  interests  is, 
now  and  always,  peace — the  peace  of  justice. 

C  ™  ] 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

With  all  our  modern  improvements,  our  diplo 
macy  has  no  better  standards  yet  than  those  set 
by  John  Jay  and  Charles  Francis  Adams.  Neither 
was  exactly  a  "jollier/'  and  perhaps  neither  was 
at  the  moment  exuberantly  popular  in  the  capital 
to  which  he  was  accredited.  But  they  retired  with 
the  sincere  respect  of  both  countries,  deserve  to 
be  honorably  remembered  in  the  annals  of  both, 
and  are  sure  at  least  of  lasting  names  and  the 
gratitude  of  coming  generations  in  the  land  they 
served. 

It  was  a  happy  and  illuminating  phrase  of  our 
great  Secretary  of  State  when  in  a  humorous  vein 
he  told  us  that  our  foreign  policy  consists  chiefly 
in  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  It 
requires  but  another  word,  in  fact,  to  make  it  com 
pletely  comprehensive.  To  the  Golden  Rule  and 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  we  need  only  add  the  Dix 
Doctrine  to  sum  up  the  whole  body  of  State  De 
partment  instructions  for  our  dealings  with  foreign 
nations.  No  one,  no  New  Yorker,  no  American, 
ever  forgets  the  Dix  Doctrine — "  If  any  man  hauls 
down  the  American  flag,  shoot  him  on  the  spot." 
Neither  that  nor  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  interna 
tional  law, but  both  are  sure  to  remain  fundamental 
parts  of  American  international  policy,  and  when 
you  illumine  both  by  the  Golden  Rule,  you  have 
set  forth  what  I  firmly  believe  is  the  sincere  and 
devout  wish  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  all 
its  foreign  relations  and  the  work  of  all  its  repre 
sentatives  in  the  diplomatic  service.  Our  use  for 

C  69  *] 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

the  big  stick  is  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  quiet 
citizen,  to  keep  off  footpads  and  the  dogs.  We  covet 
no  nation's  lands  or  other  possessions.  We  seek 
only  to  preserve  and  protect  our  own.  We  have 
a  passionate  preference,  manifested  on  all  suitable 
occasions  through  more  than  half  a  century,  for 
doing  this  whenever  practicable  by  international 
arbitration  rather  than  by  war.  We  sincerely  wish 
the  prosperity  and  advancing  freedom  of  all;  and 
I  fully  believe  we  are  to-day,  from  Atlantic  to 
Pacific  and  from  President  to  humblest  citizen,  as 
peace-loving  a  nation  as  exists  in  the  world. 

ii 

No  one,  I  trust,  will  ever  find  me  unmindful  of  the 
rights  and  just  claims  of  the  profession  I  honor 
most  in  the  world  and  am  the  proudest  to  have 
served.  No  man  can  have  spent  his  life  in  news 
paper  work  without  being  led  by  all  his  habits  and 
instincts  to  sympathy  with  newspaper  workers  and 
a  readiness  to  facilitate  their  efforts.  And  yet  may 
I  hint  that  there  might,  in  fact  there  must,  come 
a  time  when  it  is  the  duty  of  a  diplomatic  officer 
to  report  first  and  exclusively  to  the  government 
instead  of  reporting  to  the  newspapers ! 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  an  open  course  is  the 
best;  that  a  free  people  wish  to  know  from  day  to 
day  what  is  being  done  in  their  name  and  by  their 
authority;  that  our  government  is  not  adapted  to 
secrecy  and  does  not  like  to  make  a  mystery  of 
its  movements  and  its  policy. 

C   7°  1 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

But  the  Japanese  have  been  showing  on  a  great 
scale  that  there  is  a  duty  in  war  which  under  any 
sagacious  government  must  come  before  the  duty 
of  furnishing  bulletins  for  the  daily  press.  Diplo 
macy,  if  it  is  to  be  sagacious  or  successful,  even 
the  diplomacy  of  a  Republic,  must  be  somewhat 
in  the  same  class.  Neither  can  always  be  advan 
tageously  conducted  cor  am  publico. 

There  is  another  phase  of  our  newspaper  activ 
ities  that  merits  more  serious  consideration  from 
all  of  us  than  we  generally  give  it.  The  free  Press 
largely  rules  a  free  country.  It  may  make  peace 
or  war;  it  has  done  both.  But  it  is  quite  capable 
of  fomenting  very  grave  difficulties  which  it  never 
desired  or  intended  or  even  thought  of.  In  our 
great  distances,  and  isolation  between  two  oceans, 
and  general  feeling  of  remoteness  and  elbow-room 
and  independence,  it  has  sometimes  been  apt  in 
moments  of  excitement  to  measure  its  words  as 
little  in  dealing  with  a  high-spirited  and  sensitive 
nation  as  with  a  candidate  for  town  constable  or 
the  board  of  aldermen.  Is  it  not  time  for  the  Press, 
when  it  exercises  the  power,  to  recognize  also 
the  obligations  of  rule,  —  consideration,  moder 
ation,  and  a  scrupulous  regard  both  for  the  rights 
and  the  susceptibilities  of  others  ? 

We  have  ourselves  resented  at  times  with 
unwonted  asperity  the  slightest  foreign  interfer 
ence  in  our  own  domestic  discussions.  More  than 
once  those  of  us  of  maturer  years  have  seen  this 
country  lashed  into  a  fury  almost  belligerent 

c:  71 3 


THE  DIPLOMATIC  POINT  OF  VIEW 

merely  by  the  critical  or  carping  references  in 
foreign  newspapers.  It  might  be  well  now,  in 
some  quiet  hour,  to  consider  the  other  side,  and 
reflect  how  they  may  feel  over  our  free-spoken 
comments  on  their  affairs.  Have  we  not,  in  fact, 
taken  sides  and  led  our  people  to  take  sides,  ha 
bitually  and  even  vehemently,  on  almost  every 
foreign  question  that  comes  to  our  notice  ?  Would 
it  not  comport  better  sometimes  with  our  position 
now  if  we  were  a  little  less  dogmatic  in  laying 
down  the  duty  of  this  or  that  nation  in  its  own  do 
mestic  affairs,  and  a  little  less  partisan  in  our  view 
of  the  unhappy  conflict  between  contending  na 
tions  ?  Do  not  misunderstand  me.  I  am  arraigning 
no  one,  and  making  no  criticisms  of  others  which 
I  do  not  take  to  myself  also.  But  has  not  the  time 
come  in  the  development  of  this  country  and  in  the 
increased  intimacy  and  importance  of  its  relations 
to  other  countries,  when  we  may  advantageously 
practice  a  little  more  reserve  in  commenting  upon 
other  people's  affairs,  a  little  more  impartiality 
between  countries  at  war,  and  a  friendlier  tone  to 
each  when  we  are  on  good  terms  with  both,  and 
have  every  interest  to  remain  so?  What  is  good 
policy  for  individuals  in  the  disagreements  of  their 
neighbors  might  sometimes  in  these  international 
cases  be  pretty  good  policy  for  newspapers  too  and 
for  the  people  at  large, — an  attitude  of  friendly 
neutrality, —  while  meantime  diligently  minding 
their  own  business  and  letting  that  of  other  people 
alone. 

c  72  n 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

i 

THE  MONROE   DOCTRINE  AND  THE   POLK  DOCTRINE 

TO  the  average  American  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  seems  so  natural  and  necessary  that  he 
is  always  surprised  at  the  surprise  with  which  the 
pretension  is  regarded  by  Europe.  Not  one  of  our 
citizens  out  of  a  thousand  has  any  doubt  of  its  pro 
priety  or  of  our  duty  to  maintain  it.  The  slightest 
show  of  foreign  opposition  would  call  a  practically 
unanimous  country  to  its  defence. 

At  the  same  time  there  is  no  very  intimate 
familiarity  with  the  circumstances  of  its  origin, 
or  the  varying  scope  we  have  given  it,  and  little 
attention  has  been  paid  to  the  changed  conditions 
that  must  now  affect  its  application.  Considered  at 
present  merely  in  the  old  light,  as  a  barrier  against 
the  reactionary  designs  of  the  Holy  Alliance  upon 
the  new  republics  we  had  just  recognized  in  the 
American  continents  at  the  close  of  the  French 
Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  period,  its  condi 
tion  somewhat  resembles  that  of  a  long-neglected 
barrel  around  which  has  accumulated  the  debris  of 
years.  The  hoops,  the  thing  that  made  it  a  barrel, 
have  dropped  away ;  only  the  pressure  of  the  de 
bris  outside  holds  the  staves  together.  Remove  that 
and  the  barrel  would  tumble  to  pieces.  Keep  up  the 
outside  pressure  and  it  may  last  indefinitely. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  illustration  exactly  fits  the 

C   75  3 


* 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

case,  or  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  disap 
pear  if  Europe  ceased  to  oppose  it.  I  do  say  that 
under  a  show  of  European  opposition  it  would  be 
likely  to  last  indefinitely;  and  that  in  a  long  ab 
sence  of  such  opposition  it  may  hold  together  less 
tenaciously.  The  things  that  made  the  Monroe 
•  Doctrine  have  disappeared, — the  danger  that  the 
infant  republics  should  be  strangled  by  their  cruel 
stepmother  and  her  allies ;  that  the  Holy  Alliance 
should  check  the  spread  of  republican  institutions 
or  overturn  them  in  any  place  where  they  de 
serve  to  exist;  or  that  Europeans  should  attempt 
now,  under  the  shadow  of  the  United  States  of  the 
twentieth  century,  to  colonize  alleged  unoccupied 
lands  in  America.  Under  such  circumstances  it  may 
be  easy,  after  a  while,  for  us  to  look  over  the  Mon 
roe  Doctrine  again  in  the  light  of  the  present  situ 
ation  of  the  American  continents  and  of  our  pres 
ent  necessities.  We  will  certainly  not  abandon  it; 
but  we  may  find,  if  nobody  is  opposing  us,  that 
perhaps  its  extension,  quite  so  far  beyond  the  ori 
ginal  purpose  of  Mr.  Monroe  and  Mr.  Adams  as 
the  fervor  of  our  patriots  has  carried  it,  may  prove 
to  be  attended  with  wholly  unnecessary  inconven 
ience  to  ourselves. 

For  the  sake  of  precision  it  may  be  well  at  the  be 
ginning  to  restate  a  few  facts  about  it,  not  always 
remembered.  The  doctrine  is  not  international  law. 
It  is  not  American  law.  It  consists  merely  of  decla 
rations  of  policy  by  Presidents  and  Secretaries  of 

i  76 : 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

State,  and  these  are  not  uniform.  There  is  a  Mon 
roe  Doctrine,  suggested  in  part  by  Mr.  Canning, 
extended  and  formulated  by  Mr.  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  adopted  by  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  mes 
sage  to  Congress  of  December  2,  1823.  There  is 
a  Polk  Doctrine,  starting  in  disputes  about  our 
northwestern  frontier  and  in  an  intrigue  of  the 
slave  power  for  the  seizure  and  annexation  of  Yu 
catan,  collaborated  by  Mr.  James  Buchanan  and  his 
chief,  and  adopted  by  Mr.  Polk,  in  his  messages  to 
Congress  of  December  2, 1845,  and  April  29, 1848. 
The  Monroe  Doctrine  held  that  ( i )  "  the  Ameri 
can  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condi 
tion  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  fu 
ture  colonization  by  any  European  power ;  "and  ( 2 ) 
that,  as  "  the  political  system  of  the  allied  powers 
is  essentially  different  .  .  .  from  that  of  America 
.  .  .  with  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of 
any  European  power  ( in  America )  we  have  not  in 
terfered  and  shall  not  interfere ;  but  with  the  gov 
ernments  who  have  declared  their  independence 
and  maintained  it  ...  we  could  not  view  any  inter 
position  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or 
controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny  by 
any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward 
the  United  States."  The  second  of  these  proposi 
tions  was  the  one  suggested  and  cordially  wel 
comed  by  Great  Britain ;  the  first  was  met  by  in 
stant  dissent.  Both,  though  resting  wholly  on  the 

C    77   H 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

Presidential  declaration,  without  a  statute  or  reso 
lution  of  Congress  to  sustain  them,  have  become 
incorporated  into  the  general  American  faith.  But 
neither  of  them  declares  against  any  but  republi 
can  institutions  for  the  future  in  this  hemisphere ; 
in  fact,  about  the  same  time  we  were  recognizing 
two  emperors,  Iturbide  in  Mexico  and  Dom  Pedro 
in  Brazil.  Neither  of  them  objects  to  transfer  of 
dominion  to  Europeans  by  cession,  purchase,  or 
the  voluntary  act  of  the  inhabitants;  and  neither 
of  them  gives  any  pledge  to  any  South  American 
state  that  we  would  interfere  in  its  behalf  against 
the  use  of  force  for  the  collection  of  debts  or  the 
redress  of  injuries,  or  indeed  against  any  European 
attack. 

The  Polk  Doctrine,  starting  from  Mr.  Monroe's 
statement  about  colonization,  says:  ( i )  "It  should 
be  distinctly  announced  to  the  world  as  our  settled 
policy  that  no  future  European  colony  or  dominion 
shall,  with  our  consent,  be  planted  or  established  o\\ 
any  part  of  the  North  American  continent;"  and 
again,  quoting  Mr.  Monroe  as  opposing  the  exten 
sion  of  the  European  system  to  this  hemisphere, 
Mr.  Polk  says :  ( 2 )  "  While  it  is  not  my  purpose 
to  recommend  .  .  .  the  acquisition  of  the  dominion 
and  sovereignty  over  Yucatan,  yet  .  .  .  we  could 
not  consent  to  a  transfer  of  this  dominion  and  sov 
ereignty  to  either  Spain,  Great  Britain,  or  any  other 
European  power."  Thus,  professing  only  to  re- 
^  affirm  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  Polk  Doctrine  ex 
tends  it  to  forbid  specifically  the  establishment  or 

C   78   3 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

acquisition  of  dominion  anywhere  in  North  Amer 
ica,  and  inferentially  anywhere  in  this  hemisphere, 
by  any  European  power.1  Not  merely  are  they  for 
bidden  to  claim  unsettled  lands  and  colonize  them, 
or  to  interfere  with  the  liberties  of  the  Spanish- 
American  Republics  we  had  just  recognized ;  but 
they  must  never  take  dominion,  by  cession,  by  pur 
chase,  by  voluntary  appeal  of  inhabitants,  or  other 
wise.  Under  the  Polk  Doctrine  no  American  nation 
could  part  with  any  of  its  territory  to  Europeans 
to  secure  any  advantage  for  itself;  nor  could  its 
people  determine  their  own  destiny  at  their  own 
will.  Under  that  doctrine  Germany  could  not  buy 
a  coaling  station  off  the  coast  of  Chili,  or  on  the 

1  General  Grant  restated  the  Polk  Doctrine  even  more  specifically  (with 
out  reference,  however,  to  Mr.  Polk)  in  his  letter  to  the  Senate  of  May  3 1 , 
1870,  concerning  his  plan  for  annexing  San  Domingo,  as  follows:  "The 
Doctrine  promulgated  by  President  Monroe  has  been  adhered  to  by  all  polit 
ical  parties,  and  I  now  deem  it  proper  to  assert  the  equally  important  prin 
ciple  that  hereafter  no  territory  on  this  continent  shall  be  regarded  as  sub 
ject  of  transfer  to  a  European  power." 

Mr.  Cleveland  carried  it  so  far  in  the  Venezuela  matter,  in  his  special 
message  of  December  17,  1895,  as  to  propose  appointing  a  commission 
to  determine  the  boundary  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  and  re 
sisting  by  every  means  in  our  power  "  the  appropriation  by  Great  Britain 
of  any  lands,  or  the  exercise  of  governmental  jurisdiction  over  any  terri 
tory  which  ...  we  have  determined  .  .  .  belongs  to  Venezuela." 

Both  these  utterances  are  quite  outside  the  original  scope  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  and  are  either  variations  or  extensions  of  the  Polk  Doctrine. 

The  representatives  of  the  United  States  at  the  Hague  Peace  Conference 
(obviously  with  this  body  of  executive  declarations  in  mind)  only  signed 
its  agreements  on  condition  that  "Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention 
shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require  the  United  States  of  America  to  depart 
from  its  traditional  policy  of  not  intruding  upon,  interfering  with,  or  en 
tangling  itself  in  the  political  questions  or  internal  administration  of  any 
foreign  state ;  nor  shall  anything  contained  in  the  said  Convention  be  so 
construed  as  to  require  the  relinquishment  by  the  United  States  of  America 
of  its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely  American  questions." 

I  79  ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

confines  of  Patagonia, — not  even  if  the  recog 
nized  sovereigns  agreed  to  sell  it  and  the  inhabit 
ants  earnestly  desired  the  transfer ;  nor  could  Vene 
zuela  pay  its  European  debts  by  ceding — possibly 
even  by  leasing — the  little  island  of  Marguerita 
off  its  coast. 

I  suppose  the  logical  basis  of  our  original  as 
sertion  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  have  been  our 
own  national  interests;  and  the  only  ground  for 
any  recognition  or  toleration  of  it  by  other  nations 
to  have  been  the  national  right,  generally  claimed, 
to  hold  our  own  interests  paramount  within  the 
natural  and  legitimate  sphere  of  our  influence. 
Such  a  claim  is  known  in  international  practice. 
What  other  nations  cannot  so  clearly  understand 
is  why  Patagonia,  close  to  the  Antarctic  Circle  and 
the  southern  frigid  zone,  should  be  in  our  sphere 
of  influence  any  more  than  theirs;  or,  if  it  is,  why 
the  Azores  and  Morocco,  less  than  a  third  as  far 
away  from  us,  are  not  also  within  our  sphere  of 
influence. 

It  is  always  an  advantage,  in  any  effort  to  see 
all  around  a  subject,  to  find  the  other  man's  point 
of  view.  Perhaps  we  may  get  a  clearer  insight 
into  the  action  of  the  European  mind  on  this  sub 
ject  if  we  should  try  to  work  out  some  European 
Monroe  Doctrine,  and  especially  some  European 
Polk  Doctrine. 

China,  or  at  any  rate  China  and  Russia  com 
bined,  hold  a  position  in  Asia  far  more  command- 

C  80  H 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

ing  than  that  of  the  United  States  in  the  three 
Americas.  In  both  cases,  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Spanish- American  War,  the  governments  were  as 
absolutely  committed  to  the  despotic  as  we  are  to 
the  republican  idea ;  and  there  was  no  obvious  proof 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  their  people  did 
not  believe  in  their  system  as  much  as  the  corre 
sponding  majority  of  our  people  believe  in  ours. 
Suppose  China,  or  China  and  Russia  together,  had 
taken  ground  that  the  Asiatic  continent,  being  en 
tirely  occupied  by  the  existing  governments  which 
were  mostly  in  form  and  principle  like  their  own, 
was  no  longer  a  field  for  colonization  or  conquest 
by  any  American  power;  and  on  that  ground  had 
warned  us  off  Manila  and  the  Philippines? 

Great  Britain,  entrenched  at  the  north  and  at 
the  south  of  Africa,  and  reaching  thence  in  each 
direction  yet  farther  and  farther  toward  the  point 
where  her  two  lines  of  settlement  must  meet, 
holds  a  position  on  the  continent  of  Africa  compar 
able  at  least  to  that  of  the  United  States  on  the  con 
tinents  of  America.  In  connection  with  the  minor 
colonies  by  other  governments  of  like  tendencies 
toward  constitutional  monarchy  with  England 
herself,  Belgium,  Portugal,  and  Germany,  she  has 
the  immensely  preponderating  influence.  Suppose 
Great  Britain,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  rest, 
had  said  to  the  United  States  that  Africa,  having 
already  had  governments  under  their  control  and 
committed  mainly  to  the  ideas  of  the  constitutional 
monarchy  set  up  over  her  whole  extent  ( so  far  as 

C   81    ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

it  is  accessible  excepting  through  their  territory ) , 
is  no  longer  a  field  for  colonization  by  Republics, 
and  so  had  warned  us  off,  say,  from  Liberia? 

Would  the  United  States  have  cheerfully  ac 
cepted  that  doctrine  in  Asia,  or  even  in  Africa? 
Suppose  it  had  been  announced  when  Dewey  was 
compelled  to  leave  Hong  Kong,  and  had  his  choice 
between  falling  upon  the  national  enemy  at  Manila 
or  turning  his  back  upon  the  Spaniard  and  steam 
ing  home  across  the  Pacific?  Or  suppose  that  after 
the  war  China  and  Russia  had  called  upon  us  to 
give  up  what  we  had  conquered  and  restore  the 
Philippines  to  Spain? 

With  our  mental  vision  possibly  a  little  clarified 
by  this  glimpse  of  how  the  boot  might  look  on 
the  other  leg,  it  may  be  useful  now  to  consider 
dispassionately  the  present  advantage  to  us  of 
the  two  doctrines,  and  particularly  the  doctrine 
of  Mr.  Polk ;  and  to  count  from  the  only  point  of 
view  a  representative  government  on  its  own  ini 
tiative  has  any  right  to  take,  that  of  the  interest 
of  its  citizens,  whether  it  is  now  worth  to  them 
what  it  might  cost. 

What  would  be  our  present  precise  motive  for 
aggressively  asserting  against  the  world  the  two 
doctrines,  as  to  countries  farther  away  from  us 
than  half  Europe  and  Africa  are  ?  One  obvious  ad- 
vantage,  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  naval  and 
mercantile  marine,  must  always  be  remembered, 
and  never  undervalued, — that  of  making  naval 
and  coaling  stations  scarce  for  our  commercial 

r  ^ : 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

rivals  and  possible  enemies.  And  yet  our  position 
would  seem  a  little  curious,  spending  hundreds  of 
millions  on  a  Panama  canal,  so  as  to  open  to  all  the 
world  on  equal  terms  the  trade  on  the  Pacific,  in 
which,  until  a  canal  is  dug,  we  have  such  an  enor 
mous  natural  advantage  ourselves,  and  then  say 
ing,  "Nevertheless,  by  our  Polk  Doctrine  we  can 
still  delay  you  or  hamper  you  a  little  about  coaling 
stations!"  But  as  to  the  old  grounds  of  the  Mon 
roe  Doctrine,  are  we  afraid  now  of  peril  to  our  own 
institutions?  Have  we  any  interest  in  forcing  the 
maintenance  of  similar  institutions  elsewhere  be 
yond  the  legitimate  sphere  of  our  influence,  unless 
at  least  they  give  promise  of  bringing  to  others 
something  akin  to  what  they  have  brought  to  us  ? 
If  it  be  true  that  in  considerable  parts  of  the  re 
gions  to  the  south  of  us  they  have  resulted,  through 
the  three-quarters  of  a  century  since  the  doctrine 
was  announced,  in  tumult,  lack  of  development, 
disaster,  and  chronic  re  volution,  what  is  the  precise 
real  advantage  for  our  citizens  which  the  United 
States  derives  from  meddling,  and  aggressively 
insisting  that  the  world  must  continue  to  witness 
this  result  of  so-called  republican  institutions  on 
so  colossal  a  scale? 

In  the  short  period  since  the  escape  of  Mexico 
from  her  colonial  government,  in  1821,  a  statisti 
cal  historian  has  counted  three  hundred  revolu 
tions,  successful  or  abortive.  There  is  one  particu 
lar  South  American  state,  in  which,  for  one  reason 
or  another,  and  in  one  way  or  another,  we  have 

C   83   3 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

of  late  greatly  interested  ourselves.  The  table  of 
Venezuela's  revolutions,  forcible  removals  of  chief 
magistrates,  and  civil  wars,  with  dates  and  dura 
tion  of  each,  has  a  melancholy  significance.  From 
1811,  when  it  proclaimed  its  independence,  till 
1903,  it  has  had,  under  dictators,  supreme  chiefs, 
self-proclaimed  presidents,  and  otherwise,  over 
thirty  changes,  has  spent  over  twenty-five  years 
under  three  dictatorships,  each  violently  over 
thrown,  and  has  had  civil  war  for  twenty-nine 
years.  No  doubt  as  to  this  government,  too,  which 
has  sustained  its  independence,  and,  to  use  the 
stately  language  of  Mr.  Monroe,  whose  indepen 
dence,  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  princi 
ples,  we  acknowledge,  we  could  not  view  any  inter 
position  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  it  or  control 
ling  in  any  manner  its  destiny  by  any  European 
power  except  as  a  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly 
disposition  toward  the  United  States.  It  is  directly 
within  the  sphere  of  our  influence,  as  Cuba  was, 
and  if  there  should  ever  arise  an  imperative  neces 
sity  for  the  restoration  of  order  from  the  outside, 
the  task  would  be  ours  rather  than  that  of  any  Eu 
ropean  nation.  But  would  that  task  be  quite  so  im 
perative  or  exclusive  if,  instead  of  overhanging  the 
Caribbean  Sea  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  this  nation 
were  double  as  far  away  from  us  as  half  Africa  is? 
Such  turbulent  and  revolutionary  governments 
commit  offences  against  foreigners;  sometimes  in 
jure  foreign  residents,  sometimes  affront  or  injure 
foreign  vessels  in  their  waters,  sometimes  run  in 

C  84  ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

debt  and  fail  to  pay.  What  then?  Is  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  or,  still  more,  the  Polk  Doctrine,  to  be 
construed  into  an  international  bankruptcy  act,  to 
be  enforced  by  the  United  States  for  the  benefit 
of  any  American  Republic  against  all  European 
creditors  ?  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  to  degenerate 
into  an  international  collection  agency,  maintained 
by  the  United  States  for  the  benefit  of  European 
powers  which  may  have  just  claims  against  Ameri 
can  Republics?  In  a  recent  conspicuous  case  the 
President  has  very  properly  and  wisely  given  a 
practical  negative  to  both  these  questions;  while 
under  his  guidance  the  Secretary  of  State,  with 
consummate  skill,  has  secured  the  precedent  that 
European  powers  first  procure  our  consent  before 
attempting  to  collect  debts  by  force  on  these  con 
tinents,  and  then  only  on  their  promise  not  to  take 
territory.  Perhaps  it  is  also  a  useful  precedent,  se 
cured  at  the  same  time,  that  under  such  conditions 
the  game  does  not  prove  worth  the  candle. 

But  what  then?  What  alternative  is  left?  Shall 
we  simply  say  to  any  European  creditor  that,  as  to 
any  debt  of  any  American  Republic,  the  only  rule 
is  Caveat  emptor?  Must  the  lender  under  any  cir 
cumstances  be  merely  told  that  he  should  have  con 
sidered  the  risks  before  he  made  the  loan,  and  that 
now  he  has  no  remedy?  When  the  debtor  country 
has  no  assets  save  its  custom-houses  and  its  lands, 
must  the  United  States,  a  power  aiming  to  stand 
at  the  head  of  the  world's  civilization,  say  for  all 
time, "  You  shall  not  touch  the  only  assets  of  your 

c  85 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

debtor,  because  it  is  an  American  Republic "  ?  And, 
assuming  that  to  be  just,  and  our  determination, 
are  we  ready  to  carry  that  doctrine,  in  case  of 
need,  as  far  afield  as  to  Uruguay  and  Paraguay 
and  Patagonia — and  then  to  fight  for  it? 

That  is  the  vital  point  in  the  whole  subject,  as 
Mr.  Loomis  indicated  in  a  sagacious  address.  It  is 
better  to  consider  the  question  before  a  case  springs 
up  and  the  patriotic  tern  per  of  the  people  is  aroused. 
Obviously,  we  shall  either  modify  the  present  ex 
treme  extensions  of  the  old  doctrine,  which  carry 
it  far  beyond  any  national  interest  it  now  serves, 
or  some  day  or  another  we  shall  have  to  fight  for 
it — and  ought  to,  unless  we  mean  to  play  the  part 
of  a  vulgar  braggart,  and  loudly  assert  what  we 
are  not  ready  to  maintain.  How  far  would  it  really 
have  concerned  our  interests  in  the  case  of  the 
Argentine  troubles,  which  prostrated  the  Barings 
and  brought  on  a  great  financial  crash  in  London, 
if  Great  Britain  had  found  it  necessary  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  rights  of  her  people  to  take  steps  in 
that  remote  country,  twice  as  far  from  New  York 
as  London  itself  is,  which  would  seem  to  infringe 
upon  the  extreme  extensions  of  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  by  Polk  and  Buchanan?  Happily  the  case  did 
not  arise.  But  some  day  and  with  some  nation  it 
is  reasonably  sure  to.  We  may  better  now,  in  a 
time  of  profound  calm,  and  when  there  is  no  threat 
to  affect  our  dignity  or  disturb  the  serenity  of  our 
judgment,  give  serious  consideration  ourselves  to 
this  question :  "  How  far  south  do  we  mean  now,  in 

86 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

the  twentieth  century,  to  push  the  Monroe  Doc 
trine  and  the  Polk  Doctrine,  and  hold  ourselves 
ready  at  any  challenge  to  fight  for  them?" 

I  am  not  seeking  to  prejudge  the  question  or 
even  to  influence  the  answer.  I  am  only  present 
ing  the  subject  in  a  light  in  which  it  has  never  yet 
had  from  the  American  people  at  large  that  seri 
ous  and  solemn  consideration  which  should  always 
precede  acts  of  war. 

In  this  day,  in  the  light  of  the  last  hundred  years 
and  with  the  present  unassailable  strength  of  rep 
resentative  government  on  this  continent,  it  is  for 
us  to  say  if  there  is  any  ground  of  justice  or  right 
on  which  we  rest  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  save  that 
of  our  proper  predominance,  in  our  own  interest/ 
and  in  the  interest  of  republican  institutions  gen 
erally,  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of  our  national 
influence.  Unless  we  stop  there,  we  cannot  stop 
logically  short  of  a  similar  care  over  republican 
institutions  wherever  they  exist  on  the  surface  of 
the  globe.  For  in  an  age  of  fast  steamers  and 
wireless  telegraphy,  the  American  continents  can 
no  longer  be  treated  as  shut  up  to  themselves  and 
measurably  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Oceans  do  not  now  separate;  they  unite.  Buenos 
Ayres  is  actually  nearer  in  miles  to  Cadiz  and 
Madrid  than  to  New  York,  and  so  is  more  than 
half  of  all  South  America. 

Under  such  considerations,  if  no  foreign  interfer 
ence  arises  suddenly  to  affect  the  national  judg- 

C   87   1 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

ment,  it  is  at  least  among  the  possibilities  that  we 
may  find  two  changes  taking  place  in  the  national 

^view  of  trie  ideas  grouped  under  the  popular  term 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  We  may  see  a  consider 
able  increase  in  the  stringency  of  their  application, 
where  our  interest  clearly  calls  for  them, within  the 
natural  sphere  of  our  influence.  We  may  see  them 
slowly  moderated  as  to  remote  countries,  which 
under  changed  modern  conditions  are  no  longer 
exclusively  within  that  sphere.  No  one  denies  that 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  the  Caribbean  Sea,  and  the 
waters  of  both  oceans  about  the  Isthmus  are  within 
that  sphere.  They  must  be  forever  dominated  by 
the  great  Republic.  It  cannot  tolerate  a  nuisance 
at  its  doors,  and  the  races  that  people  those  shores 
must  keep  the  peace  and  preserve  order  as  to  us, 
and  conform  to  ordinary  international  obligations 
toward  the  world.  To  this  the  moral  duty  of  our 

.-Strength  points  and  our  material  interest  binds  us. 
^  It  was  on  this  ground  our  action  toward  Cuba  was 
justified;  and  reasons  of  equal  strength  would  no 
doubt  be  found  to  conduct  us  again  to  similar  action 
in  any  similar  emergency  throughout  that  whole 
region,  on  the  continent,  in  the  islands,  or  on  the 
other  ocean,  at  least  from  Los  Angeles  to  Lima. 

Toward  the  rest  of  the  American  continents  it 
may  some  day  prove  more  convenient  for  us  to 
assume  less  responsibility.  We  shall  certainly 
never  cease  to  manifest  our  friendly  interest  in 
those  countries.  We  do  have  a  relation  toward 
them  which  the  rest  of  the  world  can  never  have, 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

and  we  shall  hope  that  the  progress  of  the  century 
may  make  it  closer.  A  railroad  through  the  three 
Americas  will  draw  us  more  intimately  together. 
The  currents  of  trade  will  change.  The  legitimate 
sphere  of  our  influence  will  thus  widen  through 
out  those  nations  with  the  years;  and  it  might  be 
increased  rather  than  diminished  by  a  moderation 
of  our  extreme  claim  to  interfere  now  with  any 
exercise  of  their  own  sovereignty  as  to  territory, 
government,  or  otherwise,  to  which  their  calm 
judgment  of  their  own  best  interests  may  bring 
them. 


C  89  3 


II 

ANARCHISM 


NOT  long  ago  a  man  without  an  enemy  was  as 
sassinated  in  New  York  State  in  the  presence  of 
a  multitude  of  friends.  There  was  absolutely  no 
cause  save  a  political  one — he  was  at  the  head  of 
the  government.  It  was  either  a  political  offence 
or  the  act  of  a  lunatic.  The  assassin  was  promptly 
arrested,  absence  of  lunacy  was  established,  and, 
to  the  credit  of  the  progress  in  the  administra 
tion  of  American  justice  since  previous  Presiden 
tial  assassinations,  he  was  fairly  but  much  more 
promptly  tried  and  more  promptly  executed. 

The  crime  was  committed  within  a  few  miles 
of  the  Canadian  frontier.  Suppose  the  assassin  had 
been  able  to  escape  to  Canada.  Could  any  British 
authorities  have  hesitated  under  any  circumstances 
to  give  up  a  man  who  had  sought  on  their  soil  after 
such  an  act  the  asylum  their  treaties  have  invari 
ably  granted  for  a  political  offence ! 

Bear  in  mind  that  the  latest  and  only  provi 
sion  in  any  treaty  of  extradition  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  that  could  apply  to 
the  case  at  all,  that  of  March  1 1 , 1890,  expressly 
stipulates  that  fugitives  from  justice  shall  neither 
be  surrendered  nor  punished  for  crimes  of  a  po 
litical  character;  and  further  that  on  the  question 
whether  a  crime  is  of  a  political  character  the  de 
cision  of  the  government  in  whose  jurisdiction  the 
criminal  is  found  must  be  final.  It  is  pertinent  also 

L  90  1 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

to  recall  that  after  the  attempted  assassination  of 
the  third  Napoleon  in  Paris  by  Orsini,  by  which 
a  large  number  of  victims  were  killed  and  many 
more  maimed,  the  French  government  suggested 
to  Great  Britain  the  surrender  or  further  provi 
sion  for  the  punishment  of  participants  in  this  or 
kindred  plots  who  had  found  asylum  in  London, 
and  were  in  fact  believed  to  have  there  originated 
and  perfected  their  conspiracies ;  that  the  British 
government  did  not  comply;  and  that  the  Prime 
Minister  who  attempted  to  comply,  Lord  Palmer- 
ston,  was  thereby  driven  from  office.  It  is  equally 
pertinent  to  remember  that  never,  with  the  excep 
tions  of  Belgium,  Russia,  and  Luxemburg,  until 
some  time  after  this  assassination  at  Buffalo— 
never  in  fact  until  June  14,  1902,  did  the  United 
States  have  a  treaty  for  such  surrender  with  any 
other  nation,  that  its  Ministers  had  more  than  once 
been  cautioned  against  encouraging  requests  for 
such  a  clause  in  negotiations  for  any  treaty,  and 
that  the  only  additional  countries  it  has  such  treat 
ies  with  to-day  are  Brazil  and  Denmark.  At  the 
time,  therefore,  although  we  had  already  suffered 
from  two  previous  Presidential  assassinations,  we 
had  not  only  made  no  agreement  with  Great  Brit 
ain,  but  we  had  never  made  an  agreement  with 
any  nation  of  the  first  rank  (save  one)  to  return 
such  a  prisoner  ourselves,  and  were  in  no  position 
to  demand  as  a  right  more  than  we  had  stipulated 
to  concede;  while  Great  Britain  was  in  some  sort 
committed  against  such  return  in  the  conspicuous 

C  91    1 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

case  I  have  named.  On  the  other  hand,  let  us  al 
ways  gratefully  remember  that  when  there  was 
thought  to  be  some  reason  for  imagining  that  the 
assassin  of  Abraham  Lincoln  might  seek  an  asylum 
in  England,  our  representative  then  at  the  Court 
of  St.  James,  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  was  able 
to  report  promptness  and  goodwill  at  the  Foreign 
Office  in  facilitating  any  application  that  might  be 
made  for  his  surrender.  It  is  also  most  gratifying 
to  remember,  as  that  accomplished  student  of  in 
ternational  law,  Professor  John  Bassett  Moore,  of 
Columbia,  reminded  us  in  his  "  Case  of  the  Salva 
dorean  Refugees/'  that  in  June,  1894,  a  third  of  a 
century  after  the  Orsini  case,  the  Court  of  Queen's 
Bench  delivered  up  to  France  a  fugitive  charged 
with  the  explosion  at  the  Cafe  Very,  holding  that 
"in  order  to  constitute  an  offence  of  a  political 
character,  there  must  be  two  or  more  parties  in  the 
state,  each  seeking  to  impose  the  government  of 
their  own  choice  on  the  other/'  and  that  the  offence 
must  be  "  committed  by  one  side  or  the  other,  in 
pursuance  of  that  object." 

Of  course  this  last  decision  makes  the  extreme 
case,  as  I  have  stated  it,  of  a  possible  refusal  to 
surrender  the  assassin  of  McKinley  quite  beyond 
all  probabilities.  Without  a  reasonable  doubt  he 
would  have  been  surrendered  at  the  earliest  mo 
ment  at  which  the  requisite  formalities  could  have 
been  concluded.  But  it  would  have  been  an  act  of 
sympathy  and  international  comity,  due  to  thegood- 
will  of  the  British  government  of  the  day  and  its 

[   92   ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

abhorrence  of  an  atrocious  crime,  and  not  to  the 
established  law  and  practice  of  nations,  or  consis 
tent  with  any  uniform  practice  of  its  own. 

The  state,  then,  of  international  law  at  the  time 
of  our  last  Presidential  assassination,  the  record  of 
some  foreign  governments  and  the  tenderfooted- 
ness  of  a  part  of  our  own  treaty-making  power 
on  the  subject  of  extradition  are  such  that  it  may 
be  useful  to  seize  the  occasion  for  reviewing  our 
own  actual  attitude  toward  the  most  startling  and, 
in  view  of  certain  tendencies  of  the  age,  the  most 
dangerous  of  modern  crimes. 

At  theoutset  we  may  take  it  for  granted,  I  think, 
that  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the 
United  States  to  be  dependent  on  mere  interna 
tional  comity  or  on  isolated  decisions,  or  on  national 
sympathies  or  political  currents  at  the  moment  in 
the  country  from  which  it  may  seek  to  reclaim 
such  a  criminal.  As  little  is  it  consistent  with  the 
justice  of  the  United  States  that  it  should  leave  its 
own  attitude  toward  a  foreign  call  on  it  for  the  sur 
render  of  such  a  criminal,  to  depend  on  the  effect 
similar  circumstances  might  produce  upon  the  dis 
position  of  its  Administration  then  in  power.  Lex 
scripta  manet.  This  is  too  serious  a  business  to  be 
left  to  good  understandings  and  prevailing  po 
litical  currents.  It  surely  ought  to  be  embodied,  for 
any  two  lands  between  which  such  a  case  can  arise, 
in  a  written  and  solemn  engagement  which  shall 
be  for  both  of  them  the  supreme  law,  —  in  fair 

c  93 : 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

weather  or  in  foul,  in  times  of  cordiality  or  in  times 
of  alienation. 

It  was  only  in  1882  that  the  Chief  Secretary  for 
Ireland,  the  real  ruler  of  that  land  under  the  Brit 
ish  sovereign,  was  assassinated  in  Phoenix  Park. 
Suppose  one  of  the  men  implicated  in  the  plot  had 
sought  asylum  in  the  United  States  ?  —  as  one  of 
those  thought  to  be  involved  in  a  subsequent  plot 
did — the  person  known  for  a  time  as  "No.  i  ' 
and  afterward  as  Tynan.  Who  does  not  know 
what  would  have  been  the  temper,  not  merely  of 
large  classes  of  our  population,  but  of  many  lead 
ers  in  both  political  parties,  in  view  of  the  feeling 
about  Irish  affairs  then  existing  among  us,  toward 
any  attempt  at  his  extradition?  Who  does  not  see 
that  the  best  intentions  of  the  party  in  power  here 
might  have  had  a  chance  at  least  to  end,  in  such 
a  case,  just  as  the  best  intentions  of  Lord  Palmer- 
ston  did,  in  nothing  but  political  disaster?  Can  we 
afford  to  leave, or  encourage  other  nations  to  leave, 
at  the  mercy  of  such  fluctuating  circumstances  the 
punishment  of  a  crime  which  strikes  at  the  foun 
dation  of  organized  government  itself? 

The  exact  state  of  our  own  treaty  law  on  the 
subject  is  this : 

Practically  every  extradition  treaty  the  United 
States  now  has  in  force  contains  a  clause  which 
stipulates  that "  the  provisions  of  the  present  con 
vention  shall  not  be  applied  in  any  manner  to 
any  crime  or  offence  of  a  political  character /'Triv 
ial  variations  in  phraseology  occur  in  several  of 

C  94  1 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

the  treaties,  but  nothing  materially  restricting  the 
meaning  till  we  come  to  those  already  alluded  to 
with  Belgium  in  1882  and  with  Luxemburg  in 
1883.  There,  for  the  first  time,  appeared  an  agree 
ment  that"  an  attempt  against  the  life  of  the  head 
of  a  foreign  government,  or  ...  any  member  of 
his  family,  .  .  .  comprising  .  .  .  murder,  assassina 
tion,  or  poisoning,  shall  not  be  considered  a  politi 
cal  offence/' 

It  took  the  second  Presidential  assassination  to 
bring  us  to  that.  Even  then  we  were  disposed  to 
draw  back,  and  requests  for  a  similar  agreement 
were  set  aside  in  the  case  of  larger  and  more 
important  nations.  It  took  the  third  Presidential 
assassination  to  bring  us,  late  and  reluctant,  to  the 
present  conventions  with  Brazil  and  Denmark. 
That  with  Denmark  is  of  similar  purport  with  the 
Belgian  treaty.  That  with  Brazil  adds  also  to  its 
exemption  of  heads  of  government  the  govern 
ors  of  states.  With  England,  France,  Germany, 
Austria,  Spain,  Italy,  Mexico,  Chili,  the  Argentine 
Republic  —  with  most  of  the  world,  in  fact,  we  have 
no  such  agreement,  but  stand  where  we  were. 
And  our  Department  from  the  outset  has  held 
that  "  as  a  general  rule  there  can  be  no  extradition 
to  a  foreign  state  without  treaty/' 

Statesmen  have  not  hesitated  to  defend  the  old 
position,  according  to  their  lights.  Thus  Mr.  Jef 
ferson,  as  Secretary  of  State,  wrote  in  1792  to  our 
Ministers  : 


95 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

' '  Most  codes  extend  their  definition  of  treason  to  acts 
not  really  against  one's  country.  They  do  not  distinguish 
between  acts  against  the  government  and  acts  against 
the  oppressions  of  the  government.  The  latter  are  vir 
tues,  yet  have  furnished  more  victims  to  the  executioner 
than  the  former.  .  .  .  The  unsuccessful  strugglers  against 
tyranny  have  been  the  chief  martyrs  of  treason  laws  in 
all  countries.  .  .  .  Treasons,  then,  taking  the  simulated 
with  the  real,  are  sufficiently  punished  by  exile." 

Under  that  doctrine,  strained  to  the  limit,  sus 
tained  by  existing  treaty  protection  for  political 
offences,  and  unrelieved  by  the  general  human 
abhorrence  of  monstrous  crime,  Czolgosz  might 
have  been  sufficiently  punished  by  exile. 

Mr.  President  Tyler,  in  construing  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  said,  in  a  document  no  doubt 
from  the  pen  of  his  Secretary  of  State,  Daniel 
Webster: 

"In  this  .  .  .  enumeration  of  crimes  the  object  has  been 
to  exclude  all  political  offences,  or  criminal  charges,  aris 
ing  from  wars  or  intestine  commotions.  Treason,  mis- 
prision  of  treason  .  .  .  and  other  offences  of  similar  char 
acter  are  excluded." 

In  quite  recent  years,  men  whose  views  controlled 
treaties  have  been  known  to  object  successfully 
to  an  agreement  that  the  murderer  of  a  king  or 
a  czar  should  be  distinctly  excluded  from  the  pro 
tection  accorded  to  "political  criminals/' 

Great  Britain  has  at  times  eagerly  sought  what 
she  has  not  always  been  willing  to  grant.  She  de 
manded  from  Denmark  and  the  Low  Countries  the 

C   96  H 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

delivery  of  the  regicides,  and  secured  it.  Again,  in 
1799,  she  secured  from  Hamburg  the  return  of 
Napper  Tandy  and  other  Irish  insurgents.  On  that 
occasion  Napoleon  Bonaparte  addressed  to  the 
Senate  of  Hamburg  this  vehement  reproach: 

''Your  letter  does  not  justify  your  conduct.  Virtue  and 
courage  are  the  support  of  states ;  servility  and  baseness 
their  ruin.  You  have  violated  the  laws  of  hospitality  in 
a  manner  which  would  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  the 
wandering  tribes  of  the  desert." 

It  was  an  irony  of  fate  that  his  nephew,  the  third 
Napoleon,  should  be  found  demanding  in  a  graver 
case  a  like  violation  of  the  laws  of  hospitality,  and 
should  meet  a  refusal  from  the  very  nation  that 
had  profited  by  the  act  of  the  Senate  of  Hamburg. 
"Ought  English  legislation,"  exclaimed  Count 
Walewski,  his  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  "to 
give  hospitality  to  assassins,  contribute  to  favor 
their  designs,  and  shelter  persons  who  by  their  fla 
grant  acts  put  themselves  outside  the  pale  of  com 
mon  rights  and  under  the  ban  of  humanity?"  But 
his  eloquence  was  in  vain,  and  the  only  remedy 
was  the  outburst  from  officers  of  the  French  army, 
formally  and  fervently  declaring  their  eagerness 
for  a  settlement "  with  the  foul  land  which  contains 
the  haunts  of  these  monsters  who  are  sheltered 
by  its  laws."  Nor  is  the  United  States  able  to  claim 
that  it  is  clearly  and  beyond  possibility  of  ques 
tion  above  the  like  reproach.  If  the  assassin  of  that 
spotless  President  of  the  French  Republic,  M.  Sadi 

:  97  3 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

Carnot,  had  escaped  to  our  shores,  we  should  surely 
have  returned  him  as  a  voluntary  act;  but  we  had 
not,  and  we  have  not  to  this  day,  a  treaty  with 
France  that  would  have  required  our  surrendering 
him  to  justice. 

The  progress  we  have  made  since  the  assassi 
nation  of  McKinley  starts  us  on  the  road  to  re 
move  such  reproaches.  But  for  two  exceptions  the 
treaty  with  Brazil  might  be  taken  as  embody 
ing  what  in  these  days  must  be  held  the  obvious 
duty  of  any  civilized  nation  in  the  premises.  It 
fails,  however,  to  include  all  those  who  in  either 
country  stand  in  the  line  of  succession,  and  it  un 
happily  limits  its  exclusion  of  these  crimes  from 
the  category  of  political  offences  rigidly  to  the  case 
when  they  are  "  unconnected  with  political  move 
ments/'  Through  the  meshes  of  that  last  clause 
half  the  assassins  in  question  could  claim  a  right 
to  escape.  But  with  the  precedents  already  estab 
lished  and  with  the  present  temper  of  the  Senate, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  now  why  we  might 
not  promptly  conclude  treaties  with  all  nations 
on  the  basis  of  that  with  Russia,  merely  extend 
ing  it  so  as  to  include  those  in  either  country  in 
the  direct  line  of  succession  to  the  headship  of  the 
government,  and  perhaps  adding  also  in  some 
form  the  protection  of  the  Brazilian  treaty  for  gov 
ernors  of  states. 

The  commonplaces  of  international  law  and  of  our 
own  practice  on  the  subject  are  no  doubt  too  famil- 

C  98   1 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

iar  to  require  more  than  the  briefest  statement. 
Our  government  sprang  from  a  revolution,  and 
naturally  cannot  hold  revolt  against  unjust  rule  a 
crime.  No  nation  can  be  required  to  enforce  within 
its  own  boundaries  another  nation's  laws.  The  easi 
est  and  proper  place  to  try  for  a  crime  is  where  it 
was  committed.  No  nation  can  be  expected  to  send 
back  for  such  trial  persons  accused  of  acts  which 
it  does  not  hold  criminal.  It  may  even  admit  their 
criminality,  and  yet,  before  returning  them,  stipu 
late  against  a  punishment  greater  than  it  thinks 
warranted  by  the  nature  of  the  crime.  In  propor 
tion  to  the  liberality  of  its  own  institutions,  a  nation 
will  be  predisposed  to  as  lenient  a  view  as  possi 
ble  of  political  offences  arising  out  of  efforts  to  lib 
eralize  to  a  similar  point  the  institutions  of  other 
nations.  The  general  exemption  of  political  of 
fences  from  the  operation  of  extradition  treaties 
among  the  more  advanced  nations  thus  has  its 
origin  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  cannot  be  pre 
vented,  and  it  ought  not  to  be. 

But  since  we  began  this  exemption,  enormous 
changes  in  the  conditions  affecting  many  revolts 
against  established  authority  have  occurred,  with 
out  leading  to  any  corresponding  change  in  our 
policy.  The  movement  from  which  many  recent 
political  offences  spring  is  one  not  against  an  op 
pressive  authority  in  favor  of  a  more  just  one,  but 
against  any  authority.  Sometimes  its  advocates 
dream  of  an  entire  change  in  the  principles  of  gov 
ernment,  by  which  it  shall  cease  to  protect  indi- 

:  99  3 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

vidual  rights  in  property,  and  materially  modify 
individual  rights  of  the  person.  If  they  do  not  thus 
stop  short  at  communism,  they  go  on  to  the  over 
throw  of  all  existing  government,  the  destruction 
of  all  authority. 

These  are  principles  that  have  nothing  in  com 
mon  with  the  liberal  institutions  to  which  we  are 
devoted,  and  struggles  for  which  by  others  we 
have  been  unwilling  to  punish.  They  are  principles 
as  antagonistic  to  our  welfare  as  to  that  of  any 
monarchy  or  any  autocracy.  There  is  no  reason  in 
our  views  or  our  interests  why  we  should  protect 
fugitives  guilty  of  crimes  in  the  promotion  of  such 
principles,  and  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things 
why  any  organized  government  of  any  sort  should. 
They  are  necessary  outlaws  in  all  nations.  The 
most  vital  question  which  every  successful  effort 
of  theirs  raises  for  us,  and  for  all  the  world,  is 
not,  What  form  of  government  shall  we  favor? 
but,  Shall  we  have  any  form  of  government  ?  Their 
methods  are  those  of  the  conspirator  rather  than 
the  revolutionist,  and  their  weapons  the  dynamite 
bomb,  the  revolver,  and  the  dagger.  It  is  not  to  be 
tolerated  that  the  fame  of  our  Republic  should  be 
sullied  by  the  slightest  shade  of  sympathy  in  its 
international  policy  with  these  enemies  of  mankind 
who  may  seek  shelter  under  our  historic  favor  for 
political  prisoners. 

If  this  summary  of  what  I  have  termed  the  com 
monplaces  of  the  subject  has  not  outrun  approval, 
we  will  then  be  ready  to  regard  it  as  imperative  on 

[  100  ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

the  United  States,  as  a  first  step  and  at  an  early 
day,  to  free  every  extradition  treaty  it  has  with 
any  other  nation  from  their  present  quasi  protection 
under  the  guise  of  mere  political  offenders  for  the 
assassins  of  heads  of  government.  We  will  be  apt, 
I  think,  to  go  farther  and  approach  at  least  the 
views  jointly  expressed  to  us  in  the  December  fol 
lowing  the  assassination  of  President  McKinley  by 
the  governments  of  Germany  and  Russia.  They 
thought  this,  with  previous  anarchistic  crimes  and 
attempts  upon  the  lives  of  chief  magistrates,  ren 
dered  it  terribly  evident  that  a  struggle  against  the 
menace  of  anarchy  is  an  urgent  necessity  for  all 
governments.  They  accordingly  proposed  concert 
of  action  in  measures  to  check  the  anarchistic  move 
ment,  the  strengthening  of  the  penal  code  against 
anarchists,  and  particularly  the  expulsion  of  anar 
chists  from  countries  of  which  they  are  not  sub 
jects. 

The  President  had  already  recommended  to 
Congress  measures  for  keeping  them  out  of  the 
country,  for  deporting  them  if  found  here,  or  for 
their  punishment;  as  well  as  an  agreement  by 
treaties  making  anarchy  an  offence  against  the 
law  of  nations.  The  response  of  Congress  was  a  law 
merely  forbidding  the  future  admission  of  anar 
chists,  or  the  naturalization  of  such  as  may  be  here. 
Meantime  nothing  is  done  to  limit  their  present 
asylum  here,  and  little  to  restrain  their  open  pro- 
pagandism. 

At  the  same  time  the  bill  for  protecting  the  life 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

of  the  President  failed,  because  certain  Senators 
held  that  the  head  of  the  government  was  entitled 
to  no  greater  protection  before  the  law  than  its 
humblest  or  most  worthless  and  vicious  citizen. 
Their  motives  are  beyond  reproach,  but  to  me  at 
least  their  logic  and  law  seem  to  belong  not  to 
the  America  of  which  we  are  so  proud,  but  to  the 
sans-culotte  period  in  France. 

The  efforts  to  overturn  established  govern 
ments  or  to  throw  all  governments  into  chaos 
by  the  assassination  of  chief  magistrates  seem  to 
have  grown  steadily  more  frequent  and  monstrous 
through  the  past  century.  The  resulting  situation 
is  as  bad  now  as  at  any  period  in  the  world's 
history  more  recent  than  the  Roman  Empire  in 
the  days  of  its  decadent  Caesars.  In  forty  years  we 
have  ourselves  lost  three  noble  Presidents  by  as 
sassination,  besides  having  a  distinguished  Secre 
tary  of  State  and  his  son  murderously  assaulted 
and  the  former  maimed  for  life.  In  an  imperfect 
list  of  assassinations,  successful  or  attempted,  on 
sovereigns  or  other  chief  magistrates  during  the 
last  century,  I  have  counted  up  over  forty, — more 
than  one  in  three  years,  nearly  one  every  other 
year!  And  among  them  were  the  emancipating 
Czar  of  Russia,  the  emancipating  President  of  the 
United  States,  the  humane  King  of  Italy,  and  the 
blameless  and  progressive  President  of  France. 
To  these  might  be  fairly  added  that  most  pitiful 
figure  of  all,  the  sad  and  suffering  Empress  of 
Austria.  The  men  who  committed  some  of  these 

[    102    ] 


SOME  INTERNATIONAL  QUESTIONS 

crimes  are  said  to  have  enjoyed  our  hospitality 
and  to  have  been  chosen  by  lot  for  their  infamous 
work  at  meetings  under  our  protection.  In  at  least 
one  case  a  public  meeting  has  been  held  to  rejoice 
over  the  assassination  of  one  of  the  most  liberal 
and  liberty-loving  of  modern  kings,  if  not  to  claim 
a  share  of  the  credit. 

Is  this  our  loftiest  conception  of  law  and  of  hu 
man  rights?  I  present  that  foreign  suggestion  for 
surveillance  of  the  anarchists  and  for  their  expul 
sion  from  all  countries  of  which  they  are  not  sub 
jects  or  citizens;  and  I  ask  whether  the  represen 
tatives  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Czar  in  that  crisis 
came  nearer  than  the  American  Congress  to  the 
demands  of  the  highest  Christian  civilization? 


C   103 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING  FROM  THE 
SPANISH  WAR 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING  FROM  THE 
SPANISH  WAR 

MEN  are  everywhere  asking  what  should  be 
our  course  about  the  territory  conquered 
in  this  war.  Some  inquire  merely  if  it  is  good  pol 
icy  for  the  United  States  to  abandon  its  continental 
limitations,  and  extend  its  rule  over  semi-tropical 
countries  with  mixed  populations.  Others  ask  if  it 
would  not  be  the  wisest  policy  to  give  them  away 
after  conquering  them,  or  abandon  them.  They 
say  it  would  be  ruinous  to  admit  them  as  states  to 
equal  rights  with  ourselves,  and  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  to  hold  them  permanently  as  terri 
tories.  It  would  be  bad  policy,  they  argue,  to  lower 
the  standard  of  our  population  by  taking  in  hordes 
of  West  Indians  and  Asiatics ;  bad  policy  to  run 
any  chance  of  allowing  these  people  to  become 
some  day  joint  arbiters  with  ourselves  of  the  na 
tional  destinies;  bad  policy  to  abandon  the  prin 
ciples  of  Washington's  "Farewell  Address,"  to 
which  we  have  adhered  for  a  century,  and  involve 
ourselves  in  the  Eastern  question,  or  in  the  entan 
glements  of  European  politics. 

The  men  who  raise  these  questions  are  sincere 
and  patriotic.  They  are  now  all  loyally  support 
ing  the  government  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war 
which  some  of  them  were  active  in  bringing  on, 
and  others  to  the  last  deprecated  and  resisted.  Their 
doubts  and  difficulties  deserve  the  fairest  consider 
ation,  and  are  of  pressing  importance. 

C   107  J 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

But  is  there  not  another  question,  more  impor 
tant,  which  first  demands  consideration?  Have 
we  the  right  to  decide  whether  we  shall  hold  or 
abandon  the  conquered  territory,  solely  or  even 
mainly  as  a  matter  of  national  policy?  Are  we  not 
bound  by  our  own  acts,  and  by  the  responsibility 
we  have  voluntarily  assumed  before  Spain,  before 
Europe,  and  before  the  civilized  world,  to  consider 
it  first  in  the  light  of  national  duty  ? 

For  that  consideration  it  is  not  needful  now  to 
raise  the  question  whether  we  were  in  every  par 
ticular  justifiable  for  our  share  in  the  transactions 
leading  to  the  war.  However  men's  opinions  on 
that  point  may  differ,  the  nation  is  now  at  war  for 
a  good_cause,  and  has  in  a  vigorous  prosecution  of 
it  the  loyal  and  zealous  support  of  all  good  citizens. 

The  President  intervened,  with  our  army  and 
navy,  under  the  direct  command  of  Congress,  to 
put  down  Spanish  rule  in  Cuba,  on  the  distinct 
ground  that  it  was  a  rule  too  bad  to  be  longer  en 
dured.  Are  we  not,  then,  bqundjnJiQnQr  and  mor- 
als^to  seerto  it  that^ the  government  which  replaces 
Spanjglirule  is  better?  Are  we  not  morally  culpa 
ble  and  disgraced  before  the  civilized  world  if  we 
leave  it  as  bad  or  worse?  Can  any  consideration  of 
mere  policy,  of  our  own  interests,  or  our  own  ease 
and  comfort,  free  us  from  that  solemn  responsi 
bility  which  we  have  voluntarily  assumed,  and  for 
which  we  have  lavishly  spilled  American  and  Span 
ish  blood? 

Most  people  now  realize  from  what  a  mistake 
[  108  ] 


.FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

Congress  was  kept  by  the  firm  attitude  of  the 
President  in  opposing  a  recognition  of  the  so-called 
Cuban  Republic  of  Cubitas.  It  is  now  generally  un 
derstood  that  virtually  there  was  no  Cuban  Repub 
lic,  or  any  Cuban  government  save  that  of  wan 
dering  bands  of  guerrilla  insurgents,  probably  less 
numerous  and  influential  than  had  been  repre 
sented.  There  seems  reason  to  believe  that  how 
ever  bad  Spanish  government  may  have  been,  the 
rule  of  these  people,  where  they  had  the  power, 
was  as  bad ;  and  still  greater  reason  to  apprehend 
that  if  they  had  full  power,  their  sense  of  past 
wrongs  and  their  unrestrained  tropical  thirst  for 
vengeance  might  lead  to  something  worse.  Is  it 
for  that  pitiful  result  that  a  civilized  and  Christian 
people  is  giving  up  its  sons  and  pouring  out  blood 
and  treasure  in  Cuba? 

In  commanding  the  war,  Congress  pledged  us 
to  continue  our  action  until  the  pacification  of  the 
island  should  be  secured.  When  that  happy  time 
has  arrived,  if  it  shall  then  be  found  that  the  Cuban 
insurgents  and  their  late  enemies  are  able  to  unite 
in  maintaining  a  settled  and  peaceable  government 
in  Cuba,  distinctly  free  from  the  faults  which  now 
lead  the  United  States  to  destroy  the  old  one,  we 
shall  have  discharged  our  responsibility,  and  will 
be  at  liberty  to  end  our  interference.  But  if  not, 
the  responsibility  of  the  United  States  continues.  It 
is  morally  bound  to  secure  to  Cuba  such  a  govern 
ment,  even  if  forced  by  circumstances  to  furnish  it 
itself. 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

At  this  point,  however,  we  are  checked  by  a  re 
minder  of  the  further  action  of  Congress, "  assert 
ing  its  determination,  when  the  pacification  of  Cuba 
has  been  accomplished,  to  leave  the  government 
and  control  of  the  island  to  its  people/' 

Now,  the  secondary  provisions  of  any  great 
measure  must  be  construed  in  the  light  of  its  main 
purpose;  and  where  they  conflict,  we  are  led  to 
presume  that  they  would  not  have  been  adopted 
but  for  ignorance  of  the  actual  conditions.  Is  it  not 
evident  that  such  was  the  case  here?  We  now  know 
how  far  Congress  was  misled  as  to  the  organiza 
tion  and  power  of  the  alleged  Cuban  government, 
the  strength  of  the  revolt,  and  the  character  of 
the  war  the  insurgents  were  waging.  We  have  seen 
how  little  dependence  could  be  placed  upon  the 
lavish  promises  of  support  from  great  armies  of 
insurgents  in  the  war  we  have  undertaken ;  and  we 
are  beginning  to  realize  the  difference  between 
our  idea  of  a  humane  and  civilized  "  pacification" 
and  that  apparently  entertained  up  to  this  time  by 
the  insurgents.  It  is  certainly  true  that  when  the 
war  began  neither  Congress  nor  the  people  of 
the  United  States  cherished  an  intention  to  hold 
Cuba  permanently,  or  had  any  further  thought  than 
to  pacify  it  and  turn  it  over  to  its  own  people.  But 
they  must  pacify  it  before  they  turn  it  over;  and, 
from  present  indications,  to  do  that  thoroughly 
may  be  the  work  of  years.  Even  then  they  are  still 
responsible  to  the  world  for  the  establishment  of 
a  better  government  than  the  one  they  destroy.  If 

C  "o  ] 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

the  last  state  of  the  island  should  be  worse  than  the 
first,  the  fault  and  the  crime  must  be  solely  that  of 
the  United  States.  We  were  not  actually  forced  to 
involve  ourselves ;  we  might  have  passed  by  on  the 
other  side.  When,  instead,  we  insisted  on  interfer 
ing,  we  made  ourselves  responsible  for  improv 
ing  the  situation;  and,  no  matter  what  Congress 
"disclaimed/'  or  what  intention  it " asserted/'  we 
cannot  leave  Cuba  till  that  is  done  without  national 
dishonor  and  blood-guiltiness. 

The  situation  is  curiously  like  that  of  England 
in  Egypt.  She  intervened  too, under  far  less  provo 
cation,  it  must  be  admitted,  and  for  a  cause  rather 
more  commercial  than  humanitarian.  But  when 
some  thought  that  her  work  was  ended  and  that  it 
was  time  for  her  to  go,  Lord  Granville,  on  behalf 
of  Mr.  Gladstone's  government,  addressed  the 
other  great  European  Powers  in  a  note  on  the  out 
come  of  which  Congress  might  have  reflected  with 
profit  before  framing  its  resolutions.  "Although 
for  the  present,"  he  said, "  a  British  force  remains 
in  Egypt  for  the  preservation  of  public  tranquillity, 
Her  Majesty's  government  are  desirous  of  with 
drawing  it  as  soon  as  the  state  of  the  country  and 
the  organization  of  proper  means  for  the  mainte 
nance  of  the  Khedive's  authority  will  admit  of  it.  In 
the  meantime  the  position  in  which  Her  Majesty's 
government  are  placed  toward  His  Highness  im 
poses  upon  them  the  duty  of  giving  advice,  with 
the  object  of  securing  that  the  order  of  things  to 
be  established  shall  be  of  a  satisfactory  character 

L  "i  3 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

and  possess  the  elements  of  stability  and  prog 
ress/' As  time  went  on  this  declaration  did  not 
seem  quite  explicit  enough;  and  accordingly ,  just 
a  year  later,  Lord  Granville  instructed  the  present 
Lord  Cromer,  then  Sir  Evelyn  Baring,  that  it  should 
be  made  clear  to  the  Egyptian  ministers  and  gov 
ernors  of  provinces  that "  the  responsibility  which 
for  the  time  rests  on  England  obliges  Her  Maj 
esty's  government  to  insist  on  the  adoption  of  the 
policy  which  they  recommend,  and  that  it  will  be 
necessary  that  those  ministers  and  governors  who 
do  not  follow  this  course  should  cease  to  hold  their 
offices/' 

That  was  in  1884 — a  year  after  the  defeat  of 
Arabi,  and  the  "  pacification/'  The  English  are  still 
there,  and  the  Egyptian  ministers  and  governors 
now  understand  quite  well  that  they  must  cease 
to  hold  their  offices  if  they  do  not  adopt  the  policy 
recommended  by  the  British  diplomatic  agent.  If  it 
should  be  found  that  we  cannot  with  honor  and  self- 
respect  begin  to  abandon  our  self-imposed  task  of 
Cuban  "pacification"  with  any  greater  speed,  the 
impetuous  Congressmen,  as  they  read  over  their 
own  inconsiderate  resolutions  years  hence,  can  hide 
their  blushes  behind  a  copy  of  Lord  Granville's  let 
ter.  They  may  explain,  if  they  like,  with  the  clas 
sical  excuse  of  Benedick,  "When  I  said  I  would  die 
a  bachelor,  I  did  not  think  I  should  live  till  I  were 
married/'Or  if  this  seems  too  frivolous  fortheir  seri 
ous  plight,  let  them  recall  the  position  of  Mr.  Jeffer 
son  ,  who  originally  declared  that  the  purchase  of  for- 

c  112 : 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

eign  territory  would  make  waste  paper  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  subsequently  appealed  to  Congress 
for  the  money  to  pay  for  his  purchase  of  Louisiana. 
When  he  held  such  an  acquisition  unconstitutional, 
he  had  not  thought  he  would  live  to  want  Louisiana. 

As  to  Cuba,  it  may  be  fairly  concluded  that  only 
these  points  are  actually  clear:  ( i )  We  had  made  * 
ourselves,  in  a  sense,  responsible  for  Spain's  rule  in 
that  island  by  our  consistent  declaration,  through 
three-quarters  of  a  century,  that  no  other  Euro 
pean  nation  should  replace  her — Daniel  Webster, 
as  Secretary  of  State,  even  seeking  to  guard  her 
hold  as  against  Great  Britain.  ( 2 )  We  are  now  at 
war  because  we  say  Spanish  rule  is  intolerable ;  and 
we  cannot  withdraw  our  hand  till  it  is  replaced  by 
a  rule  for  which  we  are  willing  to  be  responsible. 
( 3 )  We  are  also  pledged  to  remain  till  the  pacifi 
cation  is  complete. 

In  the  other  territories  in  question  the  condn 
tions  are  different.  We  are  not  taking  possession  of-- 
them  as  we  are  of  Cuba,  with  the  avowed  purpose 
of  giving  them  a  better  government.  We  are  con-  ' 
quering  them  because  we  are  at  war  with  Spain, 
which  has  been  holding  and  governing  them  very 
much  as  she  has  Cuba;  and  we  must  strike  Spaiji 
wherever  and  as  hard  as  we  can.  But  it  must  at 
once  be  recognized  that  as  to  Porto  Rico  at  least, 
to  hold  it  would  be  the  natural  course  and  what  all 
the  world  would  expect.  Both  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico, 
like  Hawaii,  are  within  the  acknowledged  sphere 
of  our  influence,  and  ours  must  necessarily  be  the 

C    H3   3 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

first  voice  in  deciding  their  destiny.  Our  national 
position  with  regard  to  them  is  historic.  It  has  been 
officially  declared  and  known  to  every  civilized 
nation  for  three-quarters  of  a  century.  To  abandon 
it  now,  that  we  may  refuse  greatness  through  a 
"  sudden  craven  fear  of  being  great,  would  be  so  as 
tonishing  a  reversal  of  a  policy  steadfastly  main 
tained  by  the  whole  line  of  our  responsible  states 
men  since  1823  as  to  be  grotesque. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  writing  in  April  of  that 
year,  as  Secretary  of  State, to  our  Minister  to  Spain, 
pointed  out  that  the  dominion  of  Spain  upon  the 
American  continents,  north  and  south,  was  irrev 
ocably  gone,  but  warned  him  that  Cuba  and  Porto 
Rico  still  remained  nominally  dependent  upon  her, 
and  that  she  might  attempt  to  transfer  them.  That 
could  not  be  permitted,  as  they  were  "natural 
appendages  to  the  North  American  continent." 
Subsequent  statements  turned  more  upon  what 
Mr.  Adams  called  "the  transcendent  importance 
of  Cuba  to  the  United  States ; "  but  from  that  day  to 
this  I  do  not  recall  a  line  in  our  state  papers  to  show 
that  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  control  the 
future  of  Porto  Rico  as  well  as  of  Cuba  was  ever 
waived.  As  to  Cuba,  Mr.  Adams  predicted  that 
within  half  a  century  its  annexation  would  be  indis 
pensable.  "There  are  laws  of  political  as  well  as  of 
physical  gravitation,"  he  said ;  and  "  Cuba,  forcibly 
disjointed  from  its  own  unnatural  connection  with 
Spain,  and  incapable  of  self-support,  can  gravitate 
only  towards  the  North  American  Union,  which, 

C    "4   1 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

by  the  same  law  of  nature,  cannot  cast  her  off  from 
its  bosom/'  If  Cuba  is  incapable  of  self-support, 
and  could  not  therefore  be  left,  in  the  cheerful  lan 
guage  of  Congress,  to  her  own  people,  how  much 
less  could  little  Porto  Rico  stand  alone? 

There  remains  the  alternative  of  giving  Porto 
Rico  back  to  Spain  at  the  end  of  the  war.  But  if  we 
are  warranted  now  in  making  war  because  the 
character  of  Spanish  rule  in  Cuba  was  intolerable, 
how  could  we  justify  ourselves  in  handing  back 
Porto  Rico  to  the  same  rule,  after  having  once 
emancipated  her  from  it?  The  subject  need  not  be 
pursued.  To  return  Porto  Rico  to  Spain,  after  she 
is  once  in  our  possession,  is  as  much  beyond  the 
power  of  the  President  and  of  Congress  as  it  was 
to  preserve  the  peace  with  Spain  after  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  "Maine"  in  the  harbor  of  Havana.  From 
that  moment  the  American  people  resolved  that 
the  flag  under  which  this  calamity  was  possible 
should  disappear  forever  from  the  western  hemi 
sphere,  and  they  will  sanction  no  peace  that  per 
mits  it  to  remain. 

The  question  of  the  Philippines  is  different  and  ^ 
more  difficult.  They  are  not  within  what  the  di 
plomatists  of  the  world  would  recognize  as  the  le 
gitimate  sphere  of  American  influence.  Our  rela 
tion  to  them  is  purely  the  accident  of  recent  war. 
We  are  not  in  honor  bound  to  hold  them,  if  we 
can  honorably  dispose  of  them.  But  we  know  that 
their  grievances  differ  only  in  kind,  not  in  degree, 
from  those  of  Cuba,  and  having  once  freed  them 

c  us  3 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

from  the  Spanish  yoke,  we  cannot  honorably  re 
quire  them  to  go  back  under  it  again.  That  would 
be  to  put  us  in  an  attitude  of  nauseating  national 
hypocrisy ;  to  give  the  lie  to  all  our  professions  of 
humanity  in  our  interference  in  Cuba,  if  not  also 
to  prove  that  our  real  motive  was  conquest.  What 
humanity  forbade  us  to  tolerate  in  the  West  In- 
rdies,  it  would  not  justify  us  in  reestablishing  in 
the  Philippines. 

What,  then,  can  we  do  with  them  ?  Shall  we 
trade  them  for  something  nearer  home  ?  Doubt 
less  that  would  be  permissible,  if  we  were  sure 
of  thus  securing  them  a  better  government  than 
that  of  Spain,  and  if  it  could  be  done  without  pre 
cipitating  fresh  international  difficulties.  But  we 
cannot  give  them  to  our  friend  and  their  neigh 
bor  Japan  without  instantly  provoking  the  hostil 
ity  of  Russia,  which  recently  interfered  to  prevent 
a  far  smaller  Japanese  aggrandizement.  We  can 
not  give  them  to  Russia  without  a  greater  injus 
tice  to  Japan ;  or  to  Germany  or  to  France  or  to 
England  without  raising  far  more  trouble  than  we 
allay.  England  would  like  us  to  keep  them ;  the 
Continental  nations  would  like  that  better  than  any 
other  control  excepting  Spain's  or  their  own;  and 
the  Philippines  would  prefer  it  to  anything  save 
the  absolute  independence  which  they  are  incapa 
ble  of  maintaining.  Having  been  led  into  their  pos 
session  by  the  course  of  a  war  undertaken  for  the 
sake  of  humanity,  shall  we  draw  a  geographical 
limit  to  our  humanity,  and  say  we  cannot  continue 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

to  be  governed  by  it  in  Asiatic  waters  because  it 
is  too  much  trouble  and  is  too  disagreeable — and, 
besides,  there  may  be  no  profit  in  it? 

Both  war  and  diplomacy  have  many  surprises ; 
and  it  is  quite  possible  that  some  way  out  of  our 
embarrassing  possession  may  yet  be  found.  The 
fact  is  clear  that  many  of  our  people  do  not  much 
want  it;  but  if  a  way  of  relinquishing  it  is  proposed, 
the  one  thing  we  are  bound  to  insist  on  is  that  it 
shall  be  consistent  with  our  attitude  in  the  war, 
and  with  our  honorable  obligations  to  the  islands 
we  have  conquered  and  to  civilization. 

The  chief  aversion  to  the  vast  accessions  of  ter 
ritory  with  which  we  are  threatened  springs  from 
the  fear  that  ultimately  they  must  be  admitted  into 
the  Union  as  states.  No  public  duty  is  more  urgent 
at  this  moment  than  to  resist  from  the  very  out 
set  the  concession  of  such  a  possibility.  In  no  cir 
cumstances  likely  to  exist  within  a  century  should 
they  be  admitted  as  states  of  the  Union.  The  loose, 
disunited,  and  unrelated  federation  of  independent 
states  to  which  this  would  inevitably  lead,  stretch 
ing  from  the  Indian  Archipelago  to  the  Caribbean 
Sea,  embracing  all  climes,  all  religions,  all  races, 
-black,  yellow,  white,  and  their  mixtures, — all 
conditions,  from  pagan  ignorance  and  the  verge 
of  cannibalism  to  the  best  product  of  centuries 
of  civilization,  education,  and  self-government,  all 
with  equal  rights  in  our  Senate  and  representation 
according  to  population  in  our  House,  with  an  equal 
voice  in  shaping  our  national  destinies — that  would, 

C   H7  1 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

at  least  in  this  stage  of  the  world,  be  humanita- 
rianism  run  mad,  a  degeneration  and  degradation 
of  the  homogeneous,  continental  Republic  of  our 
pride,  too  preposterous  for  the  contemplation  of 
serious  and  intelligent  men.  Quite  as  well  might 
Great  Britain  now  invite  the  swarming  millions 
of  India  to  send  rajas  and  members  of  the  Lower 
House,  in  proportion  to  population,  to  swamp  the 
Lords  and  Commons  and  rule  the  English  people. 
If  it  had  been  supposed  that  even  Hawaii,  with 
its  overwhelming  preponderance  of  Kanakas  and 
Asiatics,  would  have  become  a  state,  she  could 
not  have  been  annexed.  If  the  territories  we  are 
conquering  must  become  states,  we  might  better 
renounce  them  at  once  and  place  them  under  the 
protectorate  of  some  humane  and  friendly  Euro 
pean  power  with  less  nonsense  in  its  blood. 

This  is  not  to  deny  them  the  freest  and  most 
liberal  institutions  they  are  capable  of  sustaining. 
The  people  of  Sitka  and  the  Aleutian  Islands  en 
joy  the  blessings  of  ordered  liberty  and  free  insti 
tutions,  but  nobody  dreams  of  admitting  them  to 
statehood.  New  Mexico  has  belonged  to  us  for  half 
a  century,  not  only  without  oppression,  but  with 
all  the  local  self-government  for  which  she  was 
prepared ;  yet,  though  an  integral  part  of  our  con 
tinent,  surrounded  by  states,  and  with  an  adequate 
population,  she  is  still  not  admitted  to  statehood. 
Why  should  not  the  people  on  the  island  of  Porto 
Rico,  or  even  of  Cuba,  prosper  and  be  happy  for 
the  next  century  under  a  rule  similar  in  the  main 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

to  that  under  which  their  kinsmen  of  New  Mexico 
have  prospered  for  the  last  half  century  ? 

With  some  necessary  modifications,  the  terri 
torial  form  of  government  which  we  have  tried  so 
successfully  from  the  beginning  of  the  Union  is 
well  adapted  to  the  best  of  such  communities.  It 
secures  local  self-government,  equality  before  the 
law,  upright  courts,  ample  power  for  order  and 
defence,  and  such  control  by  Congress  as  gives 
security  against  the  mistakes  or  excesses  of  people 
new  to  the  exercise  of  these  rights. 

But  such  a  system,  we  are  told,  is  contrary  to 
our  Constitution  and  to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions. 
Why?  We  have  had  just  that  system  ever  since 
the  Constitution  was  framed.  It  is  true  that  a  large 
part  of  the  territory  thus  governed  has  now  been 
admitted  into  the  Union  in  the  form  of  new  states. 
But  it  is  not  true  that  this  was  recognized  at  the  be 
ginning  as  a  right,  or  even  generally  contemplated 
as  a  probability;  nor  is  it  true  that  it  has  been  the 
purpose  or  expectation  of  those  who  annexed  for 
eign  territory  to  the  United  States,  like  the  Lou 
isiana  or  the  Gadsden  Purchase,  that  it  would  all 
be  carved  in  to  states.  That  feature  of  the  marvellous 
development  of  the  continent  has  come  as  a  sur 
prise  to  this  generation  andthe  last,and  would  have 
been  absolutely  incredible  to  the  men  of  Thomas 
Jefferson's  time.  Obviously,  then,  it  could  not  have 
been  the  purpose  for  which,  before  that  date,  our 
territorial  system  was  devised.  It  is  not  clear  that 
the  founders  of  the  government  expected  even  all 

C   "9  3 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

the  territory  we  possessed  at  the  outset  to  be  made 
into  states.  Much  of  it  was  supposed  to  be  worth 
less  and  uninhabitable.  But  it  is  certain  that  they 
planned  for  outside  accessions.  Even  in  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  they  provided  for  the  admission 
of  Canada  and  of  British  colonies  which  included 
Jamaica  as  well  as  Nova  Scotia.  Madison,  in  refer 
ring  to  this,  construes  it  as  meaning  that  they  con 
templated  only  the  admission  of  these  colonies  as 
colonies,  not  the  eventual  establishment  of  new 
states  ( "  Federalist/'  No.  43 ) .  About  the  same  time 
Hamilton  was  dwelling  on  the  alarms  of  those  who 
thought  the  country  already  too  large,  and  argu 
ing  that  great  size  was  a  safeguard  against  ambi 
tious  rulers. 

Nevertheless,  the  objectors  still  argue,  the  Con 
stitution  gives  no  positive  warrant  for  a  permanent 
territorial  policy.  But  it  does!  Ordinarily  it  may 
be  assumed  that  what  the  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion  immediately  proceeded  to  do  under  it  was 
intended  by  them  to  be  warranted  by  it;  and  we 
have  seen  that  they  immediately  devised  and  main 
tained  a  territorial  system  for  the  government  of 
territory  which  they  had  no  expectation  of  ever 
converting  into  states.  The  case,  however,  is  even 
plainer  than  that.  The  sole  reference  in  the  Con 
stitution  to  the  territories  of  the  United  States  is 
in  Article  iv,  Section  3:  "The  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules 
and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States/'  Jefferson 

C  12°  ] 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

revised  his  first  views  far  enough  to  find  warrant 
for  acquiring  territory ;  but  here  is  explicit,  unmis 
takable  authority  conferred  for  dealing  with  it, 
and  with  other  "property/'  precisely  as  Congress 
chooses.  The  territory  was  not  a  present  or  pro 
spective  party  in  interest  in  the  Union  created  under 
this  organic  act.  It  was  "  property/'  to  be  disposed 
of  or  ruled  and  regulated  as  Congress  might  de 
termine.  The  inhabitants  of  the  territory  were  not 
consulted;  there  was  no  provision  that  they  should 
even  be  guaranteed  a  republican  form  of  govern 
ment  like  the  states ;  they  were  secured  no  right 
of  representation  and  given  no  vote.  So,  too,  when 
it  came  to  acquiring  new  territory,  there  was  no 
thought  of  consulting  the  inhabitants.  Mr.  Jefferson 
did  not  ask  the  citizens  of  Louisiana  to  consent  to 
their  annexation,  nor  did  Mr.  Monroe  submit  such 
a  question  to  the  Spaniards  of  Florida,  nor  Mr. 
Polk  to  the  Mexicans  of  California,  nor  Mr.  Pierce 
to  the  New  Mexicans,  nor  Mr.  Johnson  to  the  Rus 
sians  and  Aleuts  of  Alaska.  The  power  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  deal  with  territory,  foreign  or  domes 
tic,  precisely  as  it  chooses  was  understood  from 
the  beginning  to  be  absolute;  and  at  no  stage  in 
our  whole  history  have  we  hesitated  to  exercise  it. 
The  question  of  permanently  holding  the  Philip 
pines  or  any  other  conquered  territory  as  territory 
is  not,  and  cannot  be  made,  one  of  constitutional 
right;  it  is  one  solely  of  national  duty  and  of  na 
tional  policy. 

As  a  last  resort,  it  is  maintained  that  even  if  the 

c  i«  : 


PROBLEMS  FLOWING 

Constitution  does  not  forbid,  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
does.  But  the  famous  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe 
on  which  reliance  is  placed  does  not  warrant  this 
conclusion.  After  holding  that "  the  American  con 
tinents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition 
which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  Power/'  Mr. 
Monroe  continued:  "We  should  consider  any  at 
tempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any 
part  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace 
and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  depend 
encies  of  any  European  Power  we  have  not  inter 
fered,  and  shall  not  interfere/'  The  context  makes 
it  clear  that  this  assurance  applies  solely  to  the 
existing  colonies  and  dependencies  they  still  had 
in  this  hemisphere;  and  that  even  this  was  quali 
fied  by  the  previous  warning  that  while  we  took 
no  part "  in  the  wars  of  European  Powers,  in  mat 
ters  relating  to  themselves/'  we  resented  injuries 
and  defended  our  rights.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that 
Mr.  Monroe  gave  no  pledge  that  we  would  never 
interfere  with  any  dependency  or  colony  of  Euro 
pean  Powers  anywhere.  He  simply  declared  our 
general  policy  not  to  interfere  with  existing  colo 
nies  still  remaining  to  them  on  our  coast,  so  long 
as  they  left  the  countries  alone  which  had  already 
gained  their  independence,  and  so  long  as  they 
did  not  injure  us  or  invade  our  rights.  And  even 
this  statement  of  the  scope  of  Mr.  Monroe's  decla 
ration  must  be  construed  in  the  light  of  the  fact 


FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

that  the  same  Administration  which  promulgated 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  had  already  issued  from  the 
State  Department  Mr.  Adams's  prediction,  above 
referred  to,  that  "the  annexation  of  Cuba  will  yet 
be  found  indispensable/'  Perhaps  Mr.  Monroe's 
language  might  have  been  properly  understood  as 
a  general  assurance  that  we  would  not  meddle  in 
Europe  so  long  as  they  gave  us  no  further  trouble 
in  America;  but  certainly  it  did  not  also  abandon 
to  their  exclusive  jurisdiction  Asia  and  Africa  and 
the  islands  of  the  sea. 

The  candid  conclusions  seem  inevitable  that,  not 
as  a  matter  of  policy,  but  as  a  necessity  of  the  posi 
tion  in  which  we  find  ourselves  and  as  a  matter  of 
national  duty,  we  must  hold  Cuba,  at  least  for  a 
time  and  till  a  permanent  government  is  well  estab 
lished  for  which  we  can  afford  to  be  responsible; 
we  must  hold  Porto  Rico;  and  we  may  have  to 
hold  the  Philippines. 

The  war  is  a  great  sorrow,  and  to  many  these 
results  of  it  will  seem  still  more  mournful.  They 
cannot  be  contemplated  with  unmixed  confidence 
by  any ;  and  to  all  who  think,  they  must  be  a  source 
of  some  grave  apprehensions.  Plainly,  this  unwel 
come  war  is  leading  us  by  ways  we  have  not  trod 
to  an  end  we  cannot  surely  forecast.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  some  good  things  coming  from  it 
that  we  can  already  see.  It  will  make  an  end  for 
ever  of  Spain  in  this  hemisphere.  It  will  certainly 
secure  to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  better  government. 
It  will  furnish  an  enormous  outlet  for  the  energy 
C  123  3 


PROBLEMS  FROM  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

of  our  citizens,  and  give  another  example  of  the 
rapid  development  to  which  our  system  leads.  It 
has  already  brought  North  and  South  together  as 
nothing  could  but  a  foreign  war  in  which  both 
offered  their  blood  for  the  cause  of  their  reunited 
country — a  result  of  incalculable  advantage  both 
at  home  and  abroad.  It  has  brought  England  and 
the  United  States  together — another  result  of  mo 
mentous  importance  in  the  progress  of  civilization 
and  Christianity.  Europe  will  know  us  better  hence 
forth;  even  Spain  will  know  us  better;  and  this 
knowledge  should  tend  powerfully  hereafter  to 
keep  the  peace  of  the  world.  The  war  should  abate 
the  swaggering,  swashbuckler  tendency  of  many 
of  our  public  men,  since  it  has  shown  our  incredible 
unreadiness  at  the  outset  for  meeting  even  a  third- 
rate  Power;  and  it  must  secure  us  henceforth  an 
army  and  navy  less  ridiculously  inadequate  to  our 
exposure.  It  insures  us  a  mercantile  marine.  It  in 
sures  the  Nicaragua  Canal,  a  Pacific  cable,  great 
development  on  our  Pacific  coast,  and  the  mercan 
tile  control  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  It  imposes  new 
and  very  serious  business  on  our  public  men,  which 
ought  to  dignify  and  elevate  the  public  service. 
Finally,  it  has  shown  such  splendid  courage  and 
skill  in  the  army  and  navy,  such  sympathy  at  home 
for  our  men  at  the  front,  and  such  devoted  eager 
ness,  especially  among  women,  to  alleviate  suffer 
ing  and  humanize  the  struggle,  as  to  thrill  every 
patriotic  heart  and  make  us  all  prouder  than  ever 
of  our  country  and  its  matchless  people. 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

PARTISANSHIP  stops  at  the  guard-line.  "In 
the  face  of  an  enemy  we  are  all  Frenchmen/' 
said  an  eloquent  imperialist  once  in  my  hearing, 
in  rallying  his  followers  to  support  a  foreign  mea 
sure  of  the  French  Republic.  At  this  moment  our 
soldiers  are  facing  a  barbarous  or  semi-civilized 
foe,  who  treacherously  attacked  them  in  a  distant 
land,  where  our  flag  had  been  sent,  in  friendship 
with  them,  for  the  defence  of  our  own  shores.  Was 
it  creditable  or  seemly  that  it  was  lately  left  to  a 
Bonaparte  on  our  own  soil  to  teach  some  Ameri 
can  leaders  that,  at  such  a  time,  patriotic  men  at 
home  do  not  discourage  those  soldiers  or  weaken 
the  government  that  directs  them?1 

For  good  or  ill,  the  war  was  fought.  Its  results 

1  MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  23d  inst.,  notifying  me 
of  my  election  as  a  vice-president  of  the  Anti-Imperialist  League.  I  recog 
nize  the  compliment  implied  in  this  election,  and  appreciate  it  the  more 
by  reason  of  my  respect  for  the  gentlemen  identified  with  the  league,  but 
I  do  not  think  I  can  appropriately  or  consistently  accept  the  position, 
especially  since  I  learn  through  the  press  that  the  league  adopted  at  its 
recent  meeting  certain  resolutions  to  which  I  cannot  assent.  ...  I  may 
add  that,  while  I  fully  recognize  the  injustice  and  even  absurdity  of  those 
charges  of  "disloyalty"  which  have  been  of  late  freely  made  against  some 
members  of  the  league,  and  also  that  many  honorable  and  patriotic  men 
do  not  feel  as  I  do  on  this  subject,  I  am  personally  unwilling  to  take  part 
in  an  agitation  which  may  have  some  tendency  to  cause  a  public  enemy  to 
persist  in  armed  resistance,  or  may  be,  at  least,  plausibly  represented  as 
having  this  tendency.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
country  is  at  war  with  Aguinaldo  and  his  followers.  I  profoundly  regret 
this  fact ;  .  .  .  but  it  is  a  fact,  nevertheless,  and,  as  such,  must  weigh  in 
determining  my  conduct  as  a  citizen.  .  .  . 

CHARLES  JEROME  BONAPARTE. 
Baltimore,  May  25,  1899. 

C   "7  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

are  upon  us.  With  the  ratification  of  the  Peace  of 
Paris,  our  Continental  Republic  has  stretched  its 
wings  over  the  West  Indies  and  the  East.  It  is  a 
fact  and  not  a  theory  that  confronts  us.  We  are 
actually  and  now  responsible,  not  merely  to  the 
inhabitants  and  to  our  own  people,  but,  in  interna 
tional  law,  to  the  commerce,  the  travel,  the  civil 
ization  of  the  world,  for  the  preservation  of  order 
and  the  protection  of  life  and  property  in  Cuba,  in 
Porto  Rico,  in  Guam,  and  in  the  Philippine  Archi 
pelago,  including  that  recent  haunt  of  piracy,  the 
Sulus.  Shall  we  quit  ourselves  like  men  in  the  dis 
charge  of  this  immediate  duty;  or  shall  we  fall  to 
quarrelling  with  each  other  like  boys  as  to  whether 
such  a  duty  is  a  good  or  a  bad  thing  for  the  coun 
try,  and  as  to  who  got  it  fastened  upon  us?  There 
may  have  been  a  time  for  disputes  about  the  wis 
dom  of  resisting  the  Stamp  Tax,  but  it  was  not  just 
after  Bunker  Hill.  There  may  have  been  a  time  for 
hot  debate  about  some  mistakes  in  the  antislavery 
agitation,  but  not  just  after  Sumter  and  Bull  Run. 
Furthermore,  it  is  as  well  to  remember  that  you 
can  never  grind  with  the  water  that  has  passed  the 
mill.  Nothing  in  human  power  can  ever  restore  the 
United  States  to  the  position  it  occupied  the  day  be 
fore  Congress  plunged  us  into  the  war  with  Spain, 
or  enable  us  to  escape  what  that  war  entailed.  No 
matter  what  we  wish,  the  old  continental  isolation 
is  gone  forever.  Whithersoever  we  turn  now,  we 
must  do  it  with  the  burden  of  our  late  acts  to  carry, 
the  responsibility  of  our  new  position  to  assume. 

C   1«8  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

When  the  sovereignty  which  Spain  had  exer 
cised  with  the  assent  of  all  nations  over  vast  and 
distant  regions  for  three  hundred  years  was  sol 
emnly  transferred  under  the  eye  of  the  civilized 
world  to  the  United  States,  our  first  responsibility 
became  the  restoration  of  order.  Till  that  is  secured, 
any  hindrance  to  the  effort  is  bad  citizenship — as 
bad  as  resistance  to  the  police;  as  much  worse,  in 
fact,  as  its  consequences  may  be  more  bloody  and 
disastrous. "  You  have  a  wolf  by  the  ears/'  said 
an  accomplished  ex-Minister  of  the  United  States 
to  a  departing  Peace  Commissioner  last  autumn. 
"  You  cannot  let  go  of  him  with  either  dignity  or 
safety,  and  he  will  not  be  easy  to  tame/' 

But  when  the  task  is  accomplished, — when  the 
Stars  and  Stripes  at  last  bring  the  order  and  peace 
ful  security  they  typify,  instead  of  wanton  disor 
der,  with  all  the  concomitants  of  savage  warfare 
over  which  they  now  wave, — we  shall  then  be 
confronted  with  the  necessity  of  a  policy  for  the 
future  of  these  distant  regions.  It  is  a  problem  that 
calls  for  our  soberest,  most  dispassionate,  and  most 
patriotic  thought.  The  colleges,  and  the  educated 
classes  generally,  should  make  it  a  matter  of  con 
science — painstakingly  considered  on  all  its  sides, 
with  reference  to  international  law,  the  burdens 
of  sovereignty,  the  rights  and  the  interests  of  na 
tive  tribes,  and  the  legitimate  demands  of  civili 
zation — to  find  first  our  national  duty  and  then 
our  national  interest,  which  it  is  also  a  duty  for  our 
statesmen  to  protect.  On  such  a  subject  we  have 

C   129  J 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

a  right  to  look  to  our  colleges  for  the  help  they 
should  be  so  well  equipped  to  give.  From  those  still 
regions  of  cloistered  thought  may  well  come  the 
white  light  of  pure  reason,  not  the  wild,  whirling 
words  of  the  special  pleader,  or  of  the  partisan, 
giving  loose  rein  to  his  hasty  first  impressions.  It 
would  be  an  ill  day  for  some  colleges  if  crude  and 
hot-tempered  incursions  into  current  public  affairs, 
like  a  few  unhappily  witnessed  of  late,  should  lead 
even  their  friends  to  fear  lest  they  have  been  so 
long  accustomed  to  dogmatize  to  boys  that  they 
have  lost  the  faculty  of  reasoning  with  men. 

When  the  first  duty  is  done,  when  order  is  re 
stored  in  those  commercial  centres  and  on  that 
commercial  highway,  somebody  must  then  be  re 
sponsible  for  maintaining  it — either  ourselves  or 
some  Power  whom  we  persuade  to  take  them  off 
our  hands.  Does  anybody  doubt  what  the  Ameri 
can  people  in  their  present  temper  would  say  to 
the  latter  alternative? — the  same  people,  who  were 
ready  to  break  off  their  Joint  Commission  with 
Great  Britain  and  take  the  chances,  rather  than 
give  up  a  few  square  miles  of  worthless  land  and 
a  harbor  of  which  a  year  previously  they  scarcely 
knew  the  name  on  the  remote  coast  of  Alaska. 
Plainly  it  is  idle  now,  in  a  government  so  purely 
dependent  on  the  popular  will,  to  scheme  or  hope 
for  giving  the  Philippine  task  over  to  other  hands 
as  soon  as  order  is  restored.  We  must,  then, be  pre 
pared  with  a  policy  for  maintaining  it  ourselves. 

Of  late  years  men  have  unthinkingly  assumed 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

that  new  territory  is,  in  the  very  nature  of  our  gov 
ernment,  merely  and  necessarily  the  raw  mate 
rial  for  future  states  in  the  Union.  Colonies  and 
dependencies,  it  is  now  said,  are  essentially  incon 
sistent  with  our  system.  But  if  any  ever  entertained 
the  wild  dream  that  the  instrument  whose  pre 
amble  says  it  is  ordained  for  the  United  States  of 
America  could  be  stretched  to  the  China  Sea,  the 
first  Tagal  guns  fired  at  friendly  soldiers  of  the 
Union,  and  the  first  mutilation  of  American  dead 
that  ensued,  ended  the  nightmare  of  states  from 
Asia  admitted  to  the  American  Union.  For  that 
relief,  at  least,  we  must  thank  the  uprising  of  the 
Tagals.  It  was  a  Continental  Union  of  independent 
sovereign  states  our  Fathers  planned.  Whosoever 
proposes  to  debase  it  with  the  admixtures  of  states 
made  up  from  the  islands  of  the  sea,  in  any  archi 
pelago,  east  or  west,  is  a  bad  friend  to  the  Re 
public.  We  may  guide,  protect,  elevate  them,  and 
even  teach  them  some  day  to  stand  alone;  but  if 
we  ever  invite  them  into  our  Senate  and  House, 
to  help  to  rule  us,  we  are  the  most  imbecile  of  all 
the  offspring  of  time. 

Yet  we  must  face  the  fact  that  able  and  con 
scientious  men  believe  the  United  States  has  no 
constitutional  power  to  hold  territory  that  is  not  to 
be  erected  into  states  in  the  Union,  or  to  govern 
people  that  are  not  to  be  made  citizens.  They  are 
able  to  cite  great  names  in  support  of  their  con 
tention;  and  it  would  be  an  ill  omen  for  the  freest 
and  most  successful  constitutional  government  in 

3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

the  world  if  a  constitutional  objection  thus  fortified 
should  be  carelessly  considered  or  hastily  over 
ridden.  This  objection  rests  mainly  on  the  assump 
tion  that  the  name  "  United  States/'  as  used  in  the 
Constitution,  necessarily  includes  all  territory  the 
nation  owns,  and  on  the  historic  fact  that  large 
parts  of  this  territory,  on  acquiring  sufficient  pop 
ulation,  have  already  been  admitted  as  states,  and 
have  generally  considered  such  admission  to  be 
a  right.  Now,  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall — than 
whom  no  constitutional  authority  carries  greater 
weight — certainly  did  declare  that  the  question, 
what  was  designated  by  the  term  "  United  States/' 
in  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  giving  powers 
to  levy  duties  on  imposts  "  admitted  of  but  one 
answer/'  It  "designated  the  whole  of  the  Ameri 
can  empire,  composed  of  States  and  Territories  ."If 
that  be  accepted  as  final,  then  the  tariff  must  be 
applied  in  Manila  precisely  as  in  New  York,  and 
goods  from  Manila  must  enter  the  New  York  cus 
tom-house  as  freely  as  goods  from  New  Orleans. 
Sixty  millions  would  disappear  instantly  and  annu 
ally  from  the  treasury,  and  our  revenue  system 
would  be  revolutionized,  by  the  free  admission  of 
sugar  and  other  tropical  products  from  the  United 
States  of  Asia  and  the  Caribbean  Sea ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Philippines  themselves  would  be 
fatally  handicapped  by  a  tariff  wholly  unnatural 
to  their  locality  and  circumstances.  More.  If  that 
be  final,  the  term  "  United  States"  should  have  the 
same  comprehensive  meaning  in  the  clause  as  to 

C    132    1 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

citizenship.  Then  Aguinaldo  is  to-day  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  may  yet  run  for  the  Presi 
dency.  Still  more.  The  Asiatics  south  of  the  China 
Sea  are  given  that  free  admission  to  the  country 
which  we  so  strenuously  deny  to  Asiatics  from  the 
north  side  of  the  same  sea.  Their  goods,  produced 
on  wages  of  a  few  cents  a  day,  come  into  free  com 
petition  in  all  our  home  markets  with  the  products 
of  American  labor,  and  the  cheap  laborers  them 
selves  are  free  to  follow  if  ever  our  higher  wages 
attract  them.  More  yet.  If  that  be  final,  the  Ta- 
gals  and  other  tribes  of  Luzon,  the  Visayans  of 
Negros  and  Cebu,  and  the  Mohammedan  Malays 
of  Mindanao  and  the  Sulus,  having  each  far  more 
than  the  requisite  population,  may  demand  admis 
sion  next  winter  into  the  Union  as  free  and  inde 
pendent  states,  with  representatives  in  Senate  and 
House, and  may  plausibly  claim  that  they  can  show 
a  better  title  to  admission  than  Nevada  ever  did, 
or  Utah,  or  Idaho. 

Nor  does  the  great  name  of  Marshall  stand  alone 
in  support  of  such  conclusions.  The  converse  theory 
that  these  territories  are  not  necessarily  included 
in  the  constitutional  term  "the  United  States" 
makes  them  our  subject  dependencies,  and  at  once 
the  figure  of  Jefferson  himself  is  evoked,  with  all 
the  signers  of  the  immortal  Declaration  grouped 
about  him,  renewing  the  old  war-cry  that  govern 
ment  derives  its  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed.  At  different  periods  in  our  history 
eminent  statesmen  have  made  protests  on  grounds 

C    133   ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

of  that  sort.  Even  the  first  bill  for  Mr.  Jefferson's 
own  purchase  of  Louisiana  was  denounced  by  Mr. 
Macon  as  "establishing  a  species  of  government 
unknown  to  the  United  States;"  by  Mr.  Lucas  as 
"establishing  elementary  principles  never  previ 
ously  introduced  in  the  government  of  any  terri 
tory  of  the  United  States;"  and  by  Mr.  Campbell 
as  "really  establishing  a  complete  despotism."  In 
1823  Chancellor  Kent  said,  with  reference  to  Co 
lumbia  River  settlements,  that "  a  government  by 
Congress  as  absolute  sovereign,  over  colonies, 
absolute  dependents,  was  not  congenial  to  the 
free  and  independent  spirit  of  American  institu 
tions."  In  1848  John  C.  Calhoun  declared  that 
"the  conquest  and  retention  of  Mexico  as  a  prov 
ince  would  be  a  departure  from  the  settled  policy 
of  the  government,  in  conflict  with  its  character 
and  genius,  and  in  the  end  subversive  of  our  free 
institutions.  In  1857  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney  said 
that  "a  power  to  rule  territory  without  restriction 
as  a  colony  or  dependent  province  would  be  incon 
sistent  with  the  nature  of  our  government/'  And 
now  following  warily  in  this  line,  the  eminent  and 
trusted  advocate  of  similar  opinions  to-day,  Mr. 
Senator  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  says:  "The  mak 
ing  of  new  states  and  providing  national  defence 
are  constitutional  ends,  so  that  we  may  acquire  and 
hold  territory  for  those  purposes.  The  governing 
of  subject  peoples  is  not  a  constitutional  end,  and 
there  is  therefore  no  constitutional  warrant  for 
acquiring  and  holding  territory  for  that  purpose." 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

We  have  now,  as  is  believed,  presented  with 
entire  fairness  a  summary  of  the  more  important 
aspects  in  which  the  constitutional  objections  men 
tioned  have  been  urged.  I  would  not  underrate  a 
hair's  breadth  the  authority  of  these  great  names, 
the  weight  of  these  continuous  reassertions  of 
principle,  the  sanction  even  of  the  precedent  and 
general  practice  through  a  century.  And  yet  I  ven 
ture  to  think  that  no  candid  and  competent  man 
can  thoroughly  investigate  the  subject,  in  the  light 
of  the  actual  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  the 
avowed  purpose  of  its  framers,  their  own  prac 
tice  and  the  practice  of  their  successors,  without 
being  absolutely  convinced  that  this  whole  fabric 
of  opposition  on  constitutional  grounds  is  as  flimsy 
as  a  cobweb.  This  country  of  our  love  and  pride 
is  no  malformed,  congenital  cripple  of  a  nation, 
incapable  of  undertaking  duties  that  have  been 
found  within  the  powers  of  every  other  nation 
that  ever  existed  since  governments  among  civil 
ized  men  began.  Neither  by  chains  forged  in  the 
Constitution  nor  by  chains  of  precedent,  neither 
by  the  dead  hand  we  all  revere,  that  of  the  Fa 
ther  of  his  Country,  nor  under  the  most  author 
itative  exponents  of  our  organic  act  and  of  our 
history,  are  we  so  bound  that  we  cannot  under 
take  any  duty  that  devolves  or  exercise  any  power 
which  the  emergency  demands.  Our  Constitu 
tion  has  entrapped  us  in  no  impasse,  where  retreat 
is  disgrace  and  advance  is  impossible.  The  duty 
which  the  hand  of  Providence,  rather  than  any 

C   135  ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

purpose  of  man,  has  laid  upon  us,  is  within  our 
constitutional  powers.  Let  me  invoke  your  patience 
for  a  rather  minute  and  perhaps  wearisome  detail 
of  the  proof. 

The  notion  that  the  United  States  is  an  inferior 
sort  of  nation,  constitutionally  without  power  for 
such  public  duties  as  other  nations  habitually  as 
sume,  may  perhaps  be  dismissed  with  a  single 
citation  from  the  Supreme  Court.  Said  Mr.  Justice 
Bradley,  in  the  Legal  Tender  Cases :  "As  a  Gov 
ernment  it  Qthe  United  States^  was  invested  with 
all  the  attributes  of  sovereignty.  ...  It  seems  to 
be  a  self-evident  proposition  that  it  is  invested  with 
all  those  inherent  and  implied  powers  which,  at 
the  time  of  adopting  the  Constitution,  were  gen 
erally  considered  to  belong  to  every  government 
as  such,  and  as  being  essential  to  the  exercise  of 
its  functions"  (12  Wall.  554). 

Every  one  recalls  this  constitutional  provision: 
"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of 
and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  re 
specting  the  territory  or  other  property  of  the 
United  States."  That  grant  is  absolute,  and  the 
only  qualification  is  the  one  to  be  drawn  from  the 
general  spirit  of  the  government  the  Constitution 
was  framed  to  organize.  Is  it  consistent  with  that 
spirit  to  hold  territory  permanently,  or  for  long 
periods  of  time,  without  admitting  it  to  the  Union? 
Let  the  man  who  wrote  the  very  clause  in  ques 
tion  answer.  That  man  was  Gouverneur  Morris 
of  New  York,  and  you  will  find  his  answer  on 

C  136  i 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

page  192  of  the  third  volume  of  his  writings,  given 
only  fifteen  years  after,  in  reply  to  a  direct  ques 
tion  as  to  the  exact  meaning  of  the  clause:  "I  al 
ways  thought,  when  we  should  acquire  Canada  and 
Louisiana,  it  would  be  proper  to  govern  them  as 
provinces,  and  allow  them  no  voice  in  our  coun 
cils.  In  wording  the  third  section  of  the  fourth 
article,  I  went  as  far  as  circumstances  would  per 
mit  to  establish  the  exclusion/'  This  framer  of  the 
Constitution  desired  then,  and  intended  definitely 
and  permanently,  to  keep  Louisiana  out!  And  yet 
there  are  men  who  tell  us  the  provision  he  drew 
would  not  even  permit  us  to  keep  the  Philippines 
out!  To  be  more  papist  than  the  Pope  will  cease 
to  be  a  thing  exciting  wonder  if  every  day  modern 
men,  in  the  consideration  of  practical  and  pressing 
problems,  are  to  be  more  narrowly  constitutional 
than  the  men  that  wrote  the  Constitution ! 

Is  it  said  that,  at  any  rate,  our  practice  under 
this  clause  of  the  Constitution  has  been  against 
the  view  of  the  man  that  wrote  it,  and  in  favor  of 
that  quoted  from  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  ?  Does 
anybody  seriously  think,  then,  that  though  we 
have  held  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  and  Oklahoma 
as  territory,  organized  or  unorganized,  part  of  it 
nearly  a  century  and  all  of  it  half  a  century,  our 
representatives  believed  all  the  while  they  had 
no  constitutional  right  to  do  so?  Who  imagines 
that  when  the  third  of  a  century  during  which  we 
have  already  held  Alaska  is  rounded  out  to  a  full 
century,  that  unorganized  territory  will  even  then 

C   137] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

have  any  greater  prospect  than  at  present  of 
admission  as  a  state?  or  who  believes  our  grand 
children  will  be  violating  the  Constitution  in  keep 
ing  it  out?  Who  imagines  that  under  the  Constitu 
tion  ordained  on  this  continent  specifically  "  for  the 
United  States  of  America"  we  will  ever  permit  the 
Kanakas,  Chinese,  and  Japanese,  who  make  up  a 
majority  of  the  population  in  the  Sandwich  Islands, 
to  set  up  a  government  of  their  own  and  claim  ad 
mission  as  an  independent  and  sovereign  state  of 
our  American  Union  ?  Finally,  let  me  add  that  con 
clusive  proof  relating  not  only  to  practice  under  the 
Constitution,  but  to  the  precise  construction  of 
the  constitutional  language  as  to  the  territories  by 
the  highest  authority,  in  the  light  of  long  previous 
practice,  is  to  be  found  in  another  part  of  the  in 
strument  itself,  deliberately  added  three-quarters 
of  a  century  later.  Article  xm  provides  that  "nei 
ther  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  exist 
within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to 
their  jurisdiction. "If  the  term  "the  United  States/' 
as  used  in  the  Constitution,  really  includes  the 
territories  as  an  integral  part,  as  Mr.  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  said,  what,  then,  does  the  Constitution 
mean  by  the  additional  words,  "or  any  place  sub 
ject  to  their  jurisdiction"?  Is  it  not  too  plain  for 
argument  that  the  Constitution  here  refers  to  ter 
ritory  not  a  part  of  the  United  States,  but  subject 
to  its  jurisdiction — territory,  for  example,  like  the 
Sandwich  Islands  or  the  Philippines  ? 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  to  the  opinion  of  the 
C    138   ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

great  Chief  Justice? — for,  after  all,  his  is  not  a 
name  to  be  dealt  with  lightly.  Well,  first,  it  was 
a  dictum,  not  a  decision  of  the  court.  Next,  in 
another  and  later  case,  before  the  same  eminent 
jurist,  came  a  constitutional  expounder  as  eminent 
and  as  generally  accepted, — none  other  than 
Daniel  Webster, — who  took  precisely  the  opposite 
view.  He  was  discussing  the  condition  of  certain 
territory  on  this  continent  which  we  had  recently 
acquired.  Said  Mr.  Webster:  "What  is  Florida? 
It  is  no  part  of  the  United  States.  How  can  it  be? 
Florida  is  to  be  governed  by  Congress  as  it  thinks 
proper.  Congress  might  have  done  anything — 
might  have  refused  a  trial  by  jury,  and  refused 
a  legislature/'  After  this  flat  contradiction  of  the 
court's  former  dictum,  what  happened?  Mr.  Web 
ster  won  his  case,  and  the  Chief  Justice  made  not 
the  slightest  reference  to  his  own  previous  and 
directly  conflicting  opinion !  Need  we  give  it  more 
attention  now  than  Marshall  did  then  ? 

Mr.  Webster  maintained  the  same  position  long 
afterward,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in 
opposition  to  Mr.  John  C.  Calhoun,  and  his  view 
has  been  continuously  sustained  since  by  the  courts 
and  by  congressional  action.  In  the  debate  with  Mr. 
Calhoun,  in  February,  1849,  Mr.  Webster  said: 
"What  is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States? 
Is  not  its  very  first  principle  that  all  within  its  in 
fluence  and  comprehension  shall  be  represented 
in  the  legislature  which  it  establishes,  with  not  only 
a  right  of  debate  and  a  right  to  vote  in  both  Houses 

C   139   ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

of  Congress,  but  a  right  to  partake  in  the  choice 
of  President  and  Vice-President  ?  .  .  .  The  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  shall  govern  this  ter 
ritory  as  he  sees  fit  till  Congress  makes  further 
provision.  .  .  .  We  have  never  had  a  territory  gov 
erned  as  the  United  States  is  governed.  ...  I  do 
not  say  that  while  we  sit  here  to  make  laws  for 
these  territories,  we  are  not  bound  by  every  one 
of  those  great  principles  which  are  intended  as 
general  securities  for  public  liberty.  But  they  do 
not  exist  in  territories  till  introduced  by  the  author 
ity  of  Congress.  .  .  .  Our  history  is  uniform  in  its 
course.  It  began  with  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana. 
It  went  on  after  Florida  became  a  part  of  the 
Union.  In  all  cases,  under  all  circumstances,  by 
every  proceeding  of  Congress  on  the  subject,  and 
by  all  judicature  on  the  subject,  it  has  been  held 
that  territories  belonging  to  the  United  States  were 
to  be  governed  by  a  constitution  of  their  own, .  .  . 
and  in  approving  that  constitution  the  legislation 
of  Congress  was  not  necessarily  confined  to  those 
principles  that  bind  it  when  it  is  exercised  in  pass 
ing  laws  for  the  United  States  itself ."  Mr.  Calhoun, 
in  the  course  of  the  debate,  asked  Mr.  Webster 
for  judicial  opinion  sustaining  these  views,  and 
Mr.  Webster  said  that  "the  same  thing  has  been 
decided  by  the  United  States  courts  over  and  over 
again  for  the  last  thirty  years/' 

I  may  add  that  it  has  been  so  held  over  and 
over  again  during  the  subsequent  fifty.  Mr.  Chief 
Justice  Waite,  giving  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

Court  of  the  United  States  ( in  National  Bank  v. 
County  of  Yankton,  101  U.S.  129-132),  said  :  "It 
is  certainly  now  too  late  to  doubt  the  power  of 
Congress  to  govern  the  territories.  Congress  is 
supreme,  and,  for  all  the  purposes  of  this  depart 
ment,  has  all  the  powers  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  except  such  as  have  been  expressly 
or  by  implication  reserved  in  the  prohibitions  of 
the  Constitution/' 

Mr.  Justice  Stanley  Matthews  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  stated  the  same  view  with 
even  greater  clearness  in  one  of  the  Utah  polyg 
amy  cases  (Murphy  v.  Ramsey,  114  U.  S.  44,45): 
"  It  rests  with  Congress  to  say  whether  in  a  given 
case  any  of  the  people  resident  in  the  territory 
shall  participate  in  the  election  of  its  officers  or 
the  making  of  its  laws.  It  may  take  from  them 
any  right  of  suffrage  it  may  previously  have 
conferred,  or  at  any  time  modify  or  abridge  it,  as 
it  may  deem  expedient.  .  .  .  Their  political  rights 
are  franchises  which  they  hold  as  privileges,  in 
the  legislative  discretion  of  the  United  States/' 

The  very  latest  judicial  utterance  on  the  sub 
ject  is  in  harmony  with  all  the  rest.  Mr.  Justice 
Morrow  of  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals 
for  the  Ninth  Circuit,  in  February,  1898,  held 
( 57  U.  S.  Appeals,  6 ) :  "  The  now  well-established 
doctrine  £is]  that  the  territories  of  the  United  States 
are  entirely  subject  to  the  legislative  authority  of 
Congress.  They  are  not  organized  under  the  Con 
stitution  nor  subject  to  its  complex  distribution  of 

C    141    1 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

the  powers  of  government.  The  United  States, 
having  rightfully  acquired  the  territories,  and  be 
ing  the  only  government  which  can  impose  laws 
upon  them,  has  the  entire  dominion  and  sover 
eignty,  national  and  municipal,  federal  and  state/' 
In  the  light  of  such  expositions  of  our  consti 
tutional  power  and  our  uniform  national  practice, 
it  is  difficult  to  deal  patiently  with  the  remaining 
objections  to  the  acquisition  of  territory,  purport 
ing  to  be  based  on  constitutional  grounds.  One  is 
that  to  govern  the  Philippines  without  their  con 
sent  or  against  the  opposition  of  Aguinaldo  is  to 
violate  the  principle — only  formulated,  to  be  sure, 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  but,  as  they 
say, underlying  the  whole  Constitution — that  gov 
ernment  derives  its  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed.  In  the  Sulu  group  piracy  pre 
vailed  for  centuries.  How  could  a  government  that 
put  it  down  rest  on  the  consent  of  Sulu?  Would  it 
be  without  just  powers  because  the  pirates  did  not 
vote  in  its  favor?  In  other  parts  of  the  archipelago, 
what  has  been  stigmatized  as  a  species  of  slavery 
prevails.  Would  a  government  that  stopped  that 
be  without  just  powers  till  the  slaveholders  had 
conferred  them  at  a  popular  election  ?  In  another 
part  head-hunting  is,  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year, 
a  recognized  tribal  custom.  Would  a  government 
that  interfered  with  that  practice  be  open  to  de 
nunciation  as  an  usurpation,  without  just  powers, 
and  flagrantly  violating  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  unless  it  waited  at  the  polls  for  the 

C  142  ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

con  sent  of  the  head-hunters?  The  truth  is,  all  intel 
ligent  men  know — and  few  even  in  America,  ex 
cept  obvious  demagogues,  hesitate  to  admit — that 
there  are  cases  where  a  good  government  does 
not  and  ought  not  to  rest  on  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  If  men  will  not  govern  themselves  with 
respect  for  civilization  and  its  agencies,  then  when 
they  get  in  the  way  they  must  be  governed- 
always  have  been,  whenever  the  world  was  not 
retrograding,  and  always  will  be.  The  notion  that 
such  government  is  a  revival  of  slavery,  and  that 
the  United  States  by  doing  its  share  of  such  work 
in  behalf  of  civilization  would  therefore  become 
infamous,  though  put  forward  with  apparent  grav 
ity  in  some  eminently  respectable  quarters,  is  too 
fantastic  for  serious  consideration. 

Mr.  Jefferson  may  be  supposed  to  have  known 
the  meaning  of  the  words  he  wrote.  Instead  of 
vindicating  a  righteous  rebellion  in  the  Decla 
ration,  he  was  called,  after  a  time,  to  exercise  a 
righteous  government  under  the  Constitution.  Did 
he  himself,  then,  carry  his  own  words  to  such  ex 
tremes  as  these  professed  disciples  now  demand? 
Was  he  guilty  of  subverting  the  principles  of  the 
government  in  buying  some  hundreds  of  thou 
sands  of  Spaniards,  Frenchmen,  Creoles,  and  In 
dians,  "like  sheep  in  the  shambles/'  as  the  critics 
untruthfully  say  we  did  in  the  Philippines  ?  We 
bought  nobody  there.  We  held  the  Philippines  first 
by  the  same  right  by  which  we  held  our  own 
original  thirteen  states, —  the  oldest  and  firmest 

C    !43   3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

of  all  rights,  the  right  by  which  nearly  every  great 
nation  holds  the  bulk  of  its  territory — the  right  of 
conquest.  We  held  them  again  as  a  rightful  indem 
nity,  and  a  low  one,  for  a  war  in  which  the  van 
quished  could  give  no  other.  We  bought  nothing; 
and  the  twenty  millions  that  accompanied  the 
transfer  just  balanced  the  Philippine  debt. 

But  Jefferson  did,  if  you  choose  to  accept  the 
hypercritical  interpretation  of  these  latter-day  Jef- 
fersonians,  —  Jefferson  did  buy  the  Louisianians, 
even  "like  sheep  in  the  shambles,"  if  you  care  so 
to  describe  it;  and  did  proceed  to  govern  them 
without  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Monroe 
bought  the  Floridians  without  their  consent.  Polk 
conquered  the  Californians,  and  Pierce  bought 
the  New  Mexicans.  Seward  bought  the  Russians 
and  Alaskans,  and  we  have  governed  them  ever 
since,  without  their  consent.  Is  it  easy,  in  the  face 
of  such  facts,  to  preserve  your  respect  for  an  ob 
jection  so  obviously  captious  as  that  based  on  the 
phrase  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence? 

Nor  is  the  turn  Senator  Hoar  gives  the  consti 
tutional  objection  much  more  weighty.  He  wishes 
to  take  account  of  motives,  and  pry  into  the  pur 
pose  of  those  concerned  in  any  acquisition  of  ter 
ritory,  before  the  tribunals  can  decide  whether  it 
is  constitutional  or  not.  If  acquired  either  for  the 
national  defence  or  to  be  made  a  state,  the  act  is 
constitutional;  otherwise  not.  If,  then,  Jefferson 
intended  to  make  a  state  out  of  Idaho,  his  act  in 
acquiring  that  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  was 

[  144  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

all  right.  Otherwise  he  violated  the  Constitution  he 
had  helped  to  make  and  sworn  to  uphold.  And 
yet,  poor  man,  he  hardly  knew  of  the  existence 
of  that  part  of  the  territory,  and  certainly  never 
dreamed  that  it  would  ever  become  a  state,  any 
more  than  Daniel  Webster  dreamed,  to  quote  his 
own  language  in  the  Senate, that"  California  would 
ever  be  worth  a  dollar/' Is  Gouverneur  Morris  to 
be  arraigned  as  false  to  the  Constitution  he  helped 
to  frame  because  he  wanted  to  acquire  Louisiana 
and  Canada,  and  keep  them  both  out  of  the  Union  ? 
Did  Mr.  Seward  betray  the  Constitution  and  vio 
late  his  oath  in  buying  Alaska  without  the  purpose 
of  making  it  a  state?  It  seems — let  it  be  said  with 
all  respect — that  we  have  reached  the  reductio  ad 
absurdum,  and  that  the  constitutional  argument  in 
any  of  its  phases  need  not  be  further  pursued. 

If  I  have  wearied  you  with  these  detailed  proofs 
of  a  doctrine  which  Mr.  Justice  Morrow  rightly 
says  is  now  well  established,  and  these  replies  to 
its  assailants,  the  apology  must  be  found  in  the 
persistence  with  which  the  utter  lack  of  constitu 
tional  power  to  deal  with  our  new  possessions  has 
been  vociferously  urged  from  the  outset  by  the 
large  class  of  our  people  whom  I  venture  to  des 
ignate  as  the  Little  Americans,  using  that  term 
not  in  the  least  in  disparagement,  but  solely  as 
distinctive  and  convenient.  From  the  beginning  of 
the  century,  at  every  epoch  in  our  history  we  have 
had  these  Little  Americans.  They  opposed  Jeffer 
son  as  to  getting  Louisiana.  They  opposed  Mon- 

C   '45  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

roe  as  to  Florida.  They  were  vehement  against 
Texas,  against  California,  against  organizing  Ore 
gon  and  Washington,  against  the  Gadsden  Pur 
chase,  against  Alaska,  and  against  the  Sandwich 
Islands.  At  nearly  every  stage  in  that  long  story 
of  expansion  the  Little  Americans  have  either  de 
nied  the  constitutional  authority  to  acquire  and 
govern,  or  denounced  the  acquisitions  as  worth 
less  and  dangerous.  At  one  stage,  indeed,  they 
went  further.  When  state  after  state  was  pass 
ing  ordinances  of  secession,  they  raised  the  cry, 
— erroneously  attributed  to  my  distinguished  pre 
decessor  and  friend,  Horace  Greeley,  but  really 
uttered  by  Winfield  Scott, — "Wayward  Sisters, 
depart  in  peace! "  Happily,  this  form,  too,  of  Little 
Americanism  failed.  We  are  all  glad  now — my  dis 
tinguished  classmate  at  Miami,1  who  wore  the  gray 
and  invaded  Ohio  with  Morgan,  as  glad  as  myself, 
—  we  all  rejoice  that  these  doctrines  were  then 
opposed  and  overborne.  It  was  seen  then,  and  I 
venture  to  think  it  may  be  seen  now,  that  it  is  a 
fundamental  principle  with  the  American  people 
and  a  duty  imposed  upon  all  who  represent  them, 
to  maintain  the  Continental  Union  of  American 
Independent  States  in  all  the  purity  of  the  Fathers' 
conception ;  to  hold  what  belongs  to  it,  and  get  what 
it  is  entitled  to,  and,  finally,  that  wherever  its  flag 
has  been  rightfully  advanced,  there  it  is  to  be  kept. 
If  that  be  imperialism,  make  the  most  of  it! 

1  The  Hon.  Albert  S.  Berry,  M.C.  from  the  Covington,  Kentucky,  Dis 
trict. 

C  146  H 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

It  was  no  vulgar  lust  of  power  that  inspired  the 
statesmen  and  soldiers  of  the  Republic  when  they 
resisted  the  halting  counsel  of  the  Little  Ameri 
cans  in  the  past.  Nor  is  it  now.  Far  other  is  the  spirit 
we  invoke: 

"Stern  daughter  of  the  Voice  of  God, 
O  Duty!  If  that  name  thou  love — " 

in  that  name  we  beg  for  a  study  of  what  the  new 
situation  that  is  upon  us,  the  new  world  opening 
around  us,  now  demand  at  our  hands. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  will  not  refuse 
an  appeal  in  that  name.  They  never  have.  They 
had  been  so  occupied,  since  the  Civil  War,  first  in 
repairing  its  ravages,  and  then  in  occupying  and 
possessing  their  own  continent,  they  had  been  so 
little  accustomed,  in  this  generation  or  the  last,  to 
even  the  thought  of  foreign  war,  that  one  readily 
understands  why  at  the  outset  they  hardly  real 
ized  how  absolute  is  the  duty  of  an  honorable  con 
queror  to  accept  and  discharge  the  responsibilities 
of  his  conquest.  But  this  is  no  longer  a  child-nation, 
irresponsible  in  its  nonage  and  incapable  of  com 
prehending  or  assuming  the  responsibilities  of  its 
acts.  A  child  that  breaks  a  pane  of  glass  or  sets  fire 
to  a  house  may  indeed  escape.  Are  we  to  plead  the 
baby  act,  and  claim  that  we  can  flounce  around 
the  world,  breaking  international  china  and  burn 
ing  property,  and  yet  repudiate  the  bill  because 
we  have  not  come  of  age?  Who  dare  say  that  a 
self-respecting  Power  could  have  sailed  away  from 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

Manila  and  repudiated  the  responsibilities  of  its 
victorious  belligerency  ?  After  going  into  a  war  for 
humanity,  were  we  so  craven  that  we  should  seek 
freedom  from  further  trouble  at  the  expense  of 
civilization? 

If  we  did  not  want  those  responsibilities,  we 
ought  not  to  have  gone  to  war, and  I,  for  one,  would 
have  been  content.  But  having  chosen  to  go  to 
war, and  having  been  speedily  and  overwhelmingly 
successful,  we  should  be  ashamed  even  to  think 
of  running  away  from  what  inexorably  followed. 
Mark  what  the  successive  steps  were,  and  how  link 
by  link  the  chain  that  binds  us  now  was  forged. 

The  moment  war  was  foreseen,  the  fleet  we 
usually  have  in  Chinese  waters  became  indispensa 
ble,  not  merely,  as  before,  to  protect  our  trade  and 
our  missionaries  in  China,  but  to  checkmate  the 
Spanish  fleet,  which  otherwise  held  San  Francisco 
and  the  whole  Pacific  coast  at  its  mercy.  When  war 
was  declared,  our  fleet  was  necessarily  ordered 
out  of  neutral  ports.  Then  it  had  to  go  to  Manila 
or  go  home.  If  it  went  home,  it  left  the  whole  Pa 
cific  coast  unguarded,  save  at  the  particular  point 
it  touched,  and  we  should  have  been  at  once  in  a 
fever  of  apprehension,  chartering  hastily  another 
fleet  of  the  fastest  ocean-going  steamers  we  could 
find  in  the  world,  to  patrol  the  Pacific  from  San 
Diego  to  Sitka,  as  we  did  have  to  patrol  the  At 
lantic  from  Key  West  to  Bar  Harbor.  Palpably 
this  was  to  go  the  longest  way  around  to  do  a  task 
that  had  to  be  done  in  any  event,  as  well  as  to  de- 

:  148  n 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

moralize  our  forces  at  the  opening  of  the  war  with 
a  manoeuvre  in  which  our  navy  has  never  been 
expert — that  of  avoiding  a  contest  and  sailing 
away  from  the  enemy !  The  alternative  was  prop 
erly  taken.  Dewey  went  to  Manila  and  sank  the 
Spanish  fleet.  We  thus  broke  down  Spanish  means 
for  controlling  the  Philippines,  and  were  left  with 
the  Spanish  responsibility  for  maintaining  order 
there — responsibility  to  all  the  world,  German, 
English,  Japanese,  Russian,  and  the  rest — in  one 
of  the  great  centres  and  highways  of  the  world's 
commerce. 

But  why  not  turn  over  that  commercial  centre 
and  the  island  on  which  it  is  situated  to  the  Tagals  ? 
To  be  sure !  Under  three  hundred  years  of  Span 
ish  rule  barbarism  on  Luzon  had  so  far  disappeared 
that  this  commercial  metropolis,  as  large  as  San 
Francisco  or  Cincinnati, had  sprung  up  and  come  to 
be  thronged  by  traders  and  travellers  of  all  nations. 
Now  it  is  calmly  suggested  that  we  might  have 
turned  it  over  to  one  semi-civilized  tribe,  abso 
lutely  without  experience  in  governing  even  itself, 
much  less  a  great  community  of  foreigners,  prob 
ably  in  a  minority  on  the  island,  and  at  war  with 
its  other  inhabitants, — a  tribe  which  has  given  the 
measure  of  its  fitness  for  being  charged  with  the 
rights  of  foreigners  and  the  care  of  a  commercial 
metropolis  by  the  violation  of  flags  of  truce,  treach 
ery  to  the  living,  and  mutilation  of  the  dead,  which 
have  marked  its  recent  wanton  rising  against  the 
Power  that  was  trying  to  help  it! 

149 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

If  running  away  from  troublesome  responsibil 
ity  and  duty  is  our  role,  why  did  we  not  long  ago 
take  the  opportunity,  in  our  early  feebleness,  to 
turn  over  Tallahassee  and  St.  Augustine  to  the 
Seminoles,  instead  of  sending  Andrew  Jackson  to 
protect  the  settlements  and  subdue  the  savages? 
Why,  at  the  first  Apache  outbreak  after  the  Gads- 
den  Purchase,  did  we  not  hasten  to  turn  over  New 
Mexico  and  Arizona  to  their  inhabitants?  Or  why, 
in  years  within  the  memory  of  most  of  us,  when 
the  Sioux  and  Chippewas  rose  on  our  northwest 
ern  frontier,  did  we  not  invite  them  to  retain  pos 
session  of  St.  Cloud,  and  even  come  down,  if  they 
liked,  to  St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis? 

Unless  I  am  mistaken  in  regarding  all  these 
suggestions  as  too  unworthy  to  be  entertained  by 
self-respecting  citizens  of  a  powerful  and  self- 
respecting  nation,  we  have  now  reached  two  con 
clusions  that  ought  to  clear  the  air  and  simplify 
the  problem  that  remains:  First,  we  have  ample 
constitutional  power  to  acquire  and  govern  new 
territory  absolutely  at  will,  according  to  our  sense 
of  right  and  duty,  whether  as  dependencies,  as 
colonies, or  as  a  protectorate.  Secondly,  as  the  legit 
imate  and  necessary  consequence  of  our  own  pre 
vious  acts,  it  has  become  our  national  and  inter 
national  duty  to  do  it. 

How  shall  we  set  about  it?  What  shall  be  the 
policy  with  which,  when  order  has  been  inexora 
bly  restored,  we  begin  our  dealings  with  the  new 
wards  of  the  nation?  Certainly  we  must  mark  our 

C   !50  H 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

disapproval  of  the  treachery  and  barbarities  of  the 
present  contest.  As  certainly  the  oppression  of  other 
tribes  by  the  Tagals  must  be  ended,  or  the  oppres 
sion  of  any  tribe  by  any  other  within  the  sphere 
of  our  active  control.  Wars  between  the  tribes  must 
be  discouraged  and  prevented.  We  must  seek  to 
suppress  crimes  of  violence  and  private  vengeance, 
secure  individual  liberty,  protect  individual  prop 
erty,  and  promote  the  study  of  the  arts  of  peace. 
Above  all,  we  must  give  and  enforce  justice;  and 
for  the  rest,  as  far  as  possible,  leave  them  alone. 
By  all  means  let  us  avoid  a  fussy  meddling  with 
their  customs,  manners,  prejudices,  and  beliefs. 
Give  them  order  and  justice,  and  trust  to  these 
to  win  them  in  other  regards  to  our  ways.  All 
this  points  directly  to  utilizing  existing  agencies 
as  much  as  possible,  developing  native  initiative 
and  control  in  local  matters  as  fast  and  as  far  as 
we  can,  and  ultimately  giving  them  the  greatest 
degree  of  self-government  for  which  they  prove 
themselves  fitted. 

Under  any  conditions  that  exist  now,  or  have 
existed  for  three  hundred  years,  a  homogeneous 
native  government  over  the  whole  archipelago  is 
obviously  impossible.  Its  relations  to  the  outside 
world  must  necessarily  be  assumed  by  us.  We 
must  preserve  order  in  Philippine  waters,  regulate 
the  harbors,  fix  and  collect  the  duties,  apportion 
the  revenue,  and  supervise  the  expenditure.  We 
must  enforce  sanitary  measures.  We  must  retain 
such  a  control  of  the  superior  courts  as  shall  make 

C    151    3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

justice  certainly  attainable,  and  such  control  of 
the  police  as  shall  insure  its  enforcement.  But  in 
all  this,  after  the  absolute  authority  has  been  estab 
lished,  the  further  the  natives  can  themselves  be 
used  to  carry  out  the  details,  the  better. 

Such  a  system  might  not  be  unwise  even  for  a 
colony  to  which  we  had  reason  to  expect  a  con 
siderable  emigration  of  our  own  people.  If  expe 
rience  of  a  kindred  nation  in  dealing  with  similar 
problems  counts  for  anything,  it  is  certainly  wise 
for  a  distant  dependency,  always  to  be  populated 
mainly,  save  in  the  great  cities,  by  native  races, 
and  little  likely  ever  to  be  quite  able  to  stand  alone, 
while,  nevertheless,  we  wish  to  help  it  just  as  much 
as  possible  to  that  end. 

Certainly  this  is  no  bed  of  flowery  ease  in  the 
dreamy  Orient  to  which  we  are  led.  No  doubt  these 
first  glimpses  of  the  task  that  lies  before  us,  as 
well  as  the  warfare  with  distant  tribes  into  which 
we  have  been  unexpectedly  plunged,  will  pro 
voke  for  the  time  a  certain  discontent  with  our  new 
possessions.  But  on  a  far-reaching  question  of  na 
tional  policy  the  wise  public  man  is  not  so  greatly 
disturbed  by  what  people  say  in  momentary  dis 
couragement  under  the  first  temporary  check. 
That  which  really  concerns  him  is  what  people  at 
a  later  day,  or  even  in  a  later  generation,  might 
say  of  men  trusted  with  great  duties  for  their 
country,  who  proved  unequal  to  their  opportuni 
ties,  and  through  some  short-sighted  timidity  of 
the  moment  lost  the  chance  of  centuries. 

C   152  H 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

It  is  quite  true,  as  reported  in  what  seemed  an 
authoritative  way  from  Washington,  that  the  Peace 
Commissioners  were  not  entirely  of  one  mind  at 
the  outset,  and  equally  true  that  the  final  conclu 
sion  at  Washington  was  apparently  reached  on  the 
Commission's  recommendation  from  Paris.  As  the 
cold  fit,  in  the  language  of  one  of  our  censors,  has 
followed  the  hot  fit  in  the  popular  temper,  I  read 
ily  take  the  time  which  hostile  critics  consider  un 
favorable,  for  accepting  my  own  share  of  responsi 
bility,  and  for  avowing  for  myself  that  I  declared 
my  belief  in  the  duty  and  policy  of  holding  the 
whole  Philippine  Archipelago  in  the  very  first  con 
ference  of  the  Commissioners  in  the  President's 
room  at  the  White  House,  in  advance  of  any  in 
structions  of  any  sort.  If  vindication  for  it  is  needed, 
I  confidently  await  the  future. 

What  is  the  duty  of  a  public  servant  as  to  pro 
fiting  by  opportunities  to  secure  for  his  country 
what  all  the  rest  of  the  world  considers  material 
advantages?  Even  if  he  could  persuade  himself 
that  rejecting  them  is  morally  and  internationally 
admissible,  is  he  at  liberty  to  commit  his  country 
irrevocably  to  their  rejection,  because  they  do  not 
wholly  please  his  individual  fancy?  At  a  former 
negotiation  of  our  own  in  Paris,  the  great  desire  of 
the  United  States  representative,  as  well  as  of  his 
government,  had  been  mainly  to  secure  the  set 
tled  or  partly  settled  country  adjoining  us  on  the 
south,  stretching  from  the  Floridas  to  the  city  of 
New  Orleans.  The  possession  of  the  vast  unsettled 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

and  unknown  Louisiana  territory,  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  was  neither  sought  nor  thought  of. 
Suddenly,  on  an  eventful  morning  in  April,  1803, 
Talleyrand  astonished  Livingston  by  offering,  on 
behalf  of  Napoleon,  to  sell  to  the  United  States, 
not  the  Floridas  at  all,  but  merely  Louisiana,  "a 
raw  little  semi-tropical  frontier  town  and  an  unex 
plored  wilderness/' 

Suppose  Livingston  had  rejected  the  offer?  Or 
suppose  Gadsden  had  not  exceeded  his  instructions 
in  Mexico  and  boldly  grasped  the  opportunity  that 
offered  to  rectify  and  make  secure  our  southwest 
ern  frontier?  Would  this  generation  judge  that 
they  had  been  equal  to  their  opportunities  or  their 
duties  ? 

The  difficulties  which  at  present  discourage  us 
are  largely  of  our  own  creation.  It  is  not  for  any  of 
us  to  think  of  attempting  to  apportion  the  blame. 
The  only  thing  we  are  sure  of  is  that  it  was  for  no 
lack  of  authority  that  we  hesitated  and  drifted  till 
the  Tagals  were  convinced  we  were  afraid  of  them, 
and  could  be  driven  out  before  reinforcements 
arrived.  That  was  the  very  thing  our  officers  had 
warned  us  against, — the  least  sign  of  hesitation  or 
uncertainty, — the  very  danger  every  European 
with  knowledge  of  the  situation  had  dinned  in 
our  ears.  Everybody  declared  that  difficulties  were 
sure  to  grow  on  our  hands  in  geometrical  propor 
tion  to  our  delays;  and  it  was  perfectly  known  to 
the  respective  branches  of  our  government  pri 
marily  concerned  that  while  the  delay  went  on  it 

c  154  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

was  in  neglect  of  a  duty  we  had  voluntarily  as 
sumed. 

For  the  American  Commissioners,  with  due  au 
thority,  distinctly  offered  to  assume  responsibil 
ity,  pending  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  for  the 
protection  of  life  and  property  and  the  preserva 
tion  of  order  throughout  the  whole  archipelago. 
The  Spanish  Commissioners,  after  consultation 
with  their  government,  refused  this,  but  agreed 
that  each  Power  should  be  charged,  pending  the 
ratification,  with  the  maintenance  of  order  in  the 
places  where  it  was  established.  The  American 
assent  to  that  left  absolutely  no  question  as  to  the 
diminished  but  still  grave  responsibility  thus  de 
volved.1  That  responsibility  was  avoided  from  the 
hour  the  treaty  was  signed  till  the  hour  when  the 
Tagal  chieftain,  at  the  head  of  an  army  he  had 
been  deliberately  organizing,  took  things  in  his 
own  hand  and  made  the  attack  he  had  so  long 
threatened.  Disorder,  forced  loans,  impressment, 
confiscation, seizure  of  waterworks,  contemptuous 
violations  of  our  guard-lines,  and  even  the  prac 
tical  siege  of  the  city  of  Manila,  had  meantime 

1  Protocol  No.  19  of  the  Paris  Commission,  Conference  of  December  5, 
1898  :  "The  President  of  the  Spanish  Commission  having  agreed,  at  the 
last  session,  to  consult  his  government  regarding  the  proposal  of  the  Amer 
ican  Commissioners  that  the  United  States  should  maintain  public  order 
over  the  whole  Philippine  Archipelago  pending  the  exchange  of  ratifica 
tions  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  stated  that  the  answer  of  his  government  was 
that  the  authorities  of  each  of  the  two  nations  shall  be  charged  with  the 
maintenance  of  order  in  the  places  where  they  may  be  established,  those 
authorities  agreeing  among  themselves  to  this  end  whenever  they  may  deem 
it  necessary." 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

been  going  on  within  gunshot  of  troops  held  there 
inactive  by  the  nation  which  had  volunteered  re 
sponsibility  for  order  throughout  the  archipelago, 
and  had  been  distinctly  left  with  responsibility  for 
order  in  the  island  on  which  it  was  established. 
If  the  bitterest  enemy  of  the  United  States  had 
sought  to  bring  upon  it  in  that  quarter  the  greatest 
trouble  in  the  shortest  time,  he  could  have  devised 
for  that  end  no  policy  more  successful  than  the  one 
we  actually  pursued.  There  may  have  been  con 
trolling  reasons  for  it.  An  opposite  course  might 
perhaps  have  cost  more  elsewhere  than  it  saved  in 
Luzon.  On  that  point  the  public  cannot  now  form 
even  an  opinion.  But  as  to  the  effect  in  Luzon  there 
is  no  doubt;  and  because  of  it  we  have  the  right  to 
ask  a  delay  in  judgment  about  results  there  until 
the  present  evil  can  be  undone. 

Meantime, in  accordance  witha  well-known  and 
probably  unchangeable  law  of  human  nature,  this 
is  the  carnival  and  very  heyday  of  the  objectors. 
The  air  is  filled  with  their  discouragement. 

Some  exclaim  that  Americans  are  incapable  of 
colonizing  or  of  managing  colonies;  that  there  is 
something  in  our  national  character  or  institutions 
that  wholly  disqualifies  us  for  the  work.  Yet  the 
most  successful  colonies  in  the  whole  world  were 
the  thirteen  original  colonies  on  our  Atlantic  coast; 
and  the  most  successful  colonists  were  our  own 
grandfathers!  Have  the  grandsons  so  degener 
ated  that  they  are  incapable  of  colonizing  at  all,  or 
of  managing  colonies  ?  Who  says  so?  Is  it  any  one 

C  156  3  ' 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

with  the  glorious  history  of  this  continental  coloni 
zation  bred  in  his  bone  and  leaping  in  his  blood? 
Or  is  it  some  refugee  from  a  foreign  country  he 
was  discontented  with,  who  now  finds  pleasure 
in  disparaging  the  capacity  of  the  new  country  he 
came  to,  while  he  has  neither  caught  its  spirit  nor 
grasped  the  meaning  of  its  history? 

Some  bewail  the  alleged  fact  that,  at  any  rate, 
our  system  has  little  adaptability  to  the  control 
of  colonies  or  dependencies.  Has  our  system  been 
found  weaker,  then,  than  other  forms  of  govern 
ment,  less  adaptable  to  emergencies,  and  with 
people  less  fit  to  cope  with  them  ?  Is  the  difficulty 
inherent,  or  is  it  possible  that  the  emergency  may 
show,  as  emergencies  have  shown  before,  that 
whatever  task  intelligence,  energy,  and  courage 
can  surmount,  the  American  people  and  their  gov 
ernment  can  rise  to? 

It  is  said  the  conditions  in  our  new  possessions 
are  wholly  different  from  any  we  have  previously 
encountered.  This  is  true ;  and  there  is  little  doubt 
the  new  circumstances  will  bring  great  modifi 
cations  in  methods.  That  is  an  excellent  reason, 
among  others,  for  some  doubt  at  the  outset  as  to 
whether  we  know  all  about  it,  but  not  for  despair 
ing  of  our  capacity  to  learn.  It  might  be  remem 
bered  that  we  have  encountered  some  varieties  of 
conditions  already.  The  work  in  Florida  was  dif 
ferent  from  that  at  Plymouth  Rock ;  Louisiana  and 
Texas  showed  again  new  sets  of  conditions ;  Cali 
fornia  others ;  Puget  Sound  and  Alaska  still  others ; 

C   157  3 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

and  we  did  not  always  have  unbroken  success  and 
plain  sailing  from  the  outset  in  any  of  them. 

It  is  said  we  cannot  colonize  the  tropics,  because 
our  people  cannot  labor  there.  Perhaps  not,  espe 
cially  if  they  refuse  to  obey  the  prudent  precau 
tions  which  centuries  of  experience  have  enjoined 
upon  others.  But  what,  then,  are  we  going  to  do 
with  Porto  Rico?  How  soon  are  our  people  going 
to  flee  from  Arizona?  And  why  is  life  impossible 
to  Americans  in  Manila  and  Cebu  and  Iloilo,  but 
attractive  to  the  throngs  of  Europeans  who  have 
built  up  those  cities?  Can  we  mine  all  over  the 
world,  from  South  Africa  to  the  Klondike,  but  not 
in  Palawan  ?  Can  we  grow  tobacco  in  Cuba,  but  not 
in  Cebu?  or  rice  in  Louisiana,  but  not  in  Luzon? 

An  alarm  is  raised  that  our  laboring  classes 
are  endangered  by  competition  with  cheap  tropi 
cal  labor  or  its  products.  How?  The  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  which  would  permit  that  is  the 
interpretation  which  has  been  repudiated  in  an  un 
broken  line  of  decisions  for  over  half  a  century. 
Only  one  possibility  of  danger  to  American  labor 
exists  in  our  new  possessions — the  lunacy,  or 
worse,  of  the  dreamers  who  want  to  prepare  for 
the  admission  of  some  of  them  as  states  in  the 
American  Union.  Till  then  we  can  make  any  law 
we  like  to  prevent  the  immigration  of  their  labor 
ers,  and  any  tariff  we  like  to  regulate  the  admis 
sion  of  their  products. 

It  is  said  we  are  pursuing  a  fine  method  for  re 
storing  order,  by  prolonging  the  war  we  began 

C   158   H 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

for  humanity  in  order  to  force  liberty  and  justice 
on  an  unwilling  people  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet. 
The  sneer  is  cheap.  How  else  have  these  blessings 
been  generally  diffused  ?  How  often  in  the  history 
of  the  world  has  barbarism  been  replaced  by  civ 
ilization  without  bloodshed?  How  were  our  own 
liberty  and  justice  established  and  diffused  on  this 
continent?  Would  the  process  have  been  less 
bloody  if  a  part  of  our  own  people  had  noisily  taken 
the  side  of  the  English,  the  Mexican,  or  the  sav 
age,  and  protested  against  "extreme  measures"? 

Some  say  a  war  to  extend  freedom  in  Cuba  or 
elsewhere  is  right,  and  therefore  a  duty ;  but  the 
war  in  the  Philippines  now  is  purely  selfish,  and 
therefore  a  crime.  The  premise  is  inaccurate;  it  is 
a  war  we  are  in  duty  bound  to  wage  at  any  rate 
till  order  is  restored — but  let  that  pass.  Suppose 
it  to  be  merely  a  war  in  defence  of  our  own  just 
rights  and  interests.  Since  when  did  such  a  war 
become  wrong  ?  Is  our  national  motto  to  be, "  Quix 
otic  on  the  one  hand,  Chinese  on  the  other?" 

How  much  better  it  would  have  been,  say  oth 
ers,  to  mind  our  own  business !  No  doubt ;  but  if  we 
were  to  begin  crying  over  spilt  milk  in  that  way, 
the  place  to  begin  was  where  the  milk  was  spilled — 
in  the  Congress  that  resolved  upon  war  with  Spain. 
Since  that  congressional  action  we  have  been 
minding  what  is  made  our  own  business  quite  dili 
gently,  and  an  essential  part  of  our  business  now  is 
the  responsibility  for  our  own  past  acts,  whether  in 
Havana  or  Manila. 

C   159  n 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

Some  say  that  since  we  began  the  war  for  hu 
manity,  we  are  disgraced  by  coming  out  of  it  with 
increased  territory.  Then  a  penalty  must  always  be 
imposed  upon  a  victorious  nation  for  presuming  to 
do  a  good  act.  The  only  nation  to  be  exempt  from 
such  a  penalty  upon  success  is  to  be  the  nation  that 
was  in  the  wrong !  It  is  to  have  a  premium,  whether 
successful  or  not ;  for  it  is  thus  relieved,  even  in  de 
feat,  from  the  penalty  which  modern  practice  in  the 
interest  of  civilization  requires — the  payment  of  an 
indemnity  for  the  cost  of  an  unjust  war.  Further 
more,  the  representatives  of  the  nation  that  does 
a  good  act  are  thus  bound  to  reject  any  opportu 
nity  for  lightening  the  national  load  it  entails.  They 
must  leave  the  full  burden  upon  their  country,  to 
be  dealt  with  in  due  time  by  the  individual  tax 
payer  ! 

Again ,  we  have  superfine  discussion s  of  what  the 
United  States  "stands  for. "It  does  not  stand,  we  are 
told, for  foreign  conquest,  or  for  colonies  ordepend- 
encies,  or  other  extensions  of  its  power  and  influ 
ence.  It  stands  solely  for  the  development  of  the 
individual  man.  There  is  a  germ  of  a  great  truth  in 
this,  but  the  development  of  the  truth  is  lost  sight 
of.  Individual  initiative  is  a  good  thing,  and  our 
institutions  do  develop  it — and  its  consequences! 
There  is  a  species  of  individualism,  too,  about  a 
bulldog.  When  he  takes  hold  he  holds  on.  It  may 
as  well  be  noticed  by  the  objectors  that  that  is 
a  characteristic  much  appreciated  by  American 
people.  They,  too,  hold  on.  They  remember,  be- 

C  160  ^ 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

sides,  a  pregnant  phrase  of  their  Fathers,  who  "  or 
dained  this  Constitution/'  among  other  things, "to 
promote  the  general  welfare/'  That  is  a  thing  for 
which  "this  government  stands"  also;  and  woe  to 
the  public  servant  who  rejects  brilliant  opportu 
nities  to  promote  it — on  the  Pacific  Ocean  no  less 
than  the  Atlantic,  by  commerce  no  less  than  by 
agriculture  or  manufactures. 

It  is  said  the  Philippines  are  worthless — have, 
in  fact,  already  cost  us  more  than  the  value  of  their 
entire  trade  for  many  years  to  come.  So  much  the 
more,  then,  are  we  bound  to  do  our  duty  by  them. 
But  we  have  also  heard  in  turn,  and  from  the  same 
quarters,  that  every  one  of  our  previous  acquisi 
tions  was  worthless. 

Again,  it  is  said  our  continent  is  more  than 
enough  for  all  our  needs,  and  our  extensions  should 
stop  at  the  Pacific.  What  is  this  but  proposing  such 
a  policy  of  self-sufficient  isolation  as  we  are  accus 
tomed  to  reprobate  in  China — planning  now  to 
develop  only  on  the  soil  on  which  we  stand,  and 
expecting  the  rest  of  the  world  to  protect  our  trade 
if  we  have  any?  Can  a  nation  with  safety  set  such 
limits  to  its  development  ?  When  a  tree  stops  grow 
ing, our  foresters  tell  us, it  is  ripe  for  the  axe.  When 
a  man  stops  in  his  physical  and  intellectual  growth 
he  begins  to  decay.  When  a  business  stops  grow 
ing  it  is  in  danger  of  decline.  When  a  nation  stops 
growing  it  has  passed  the  meridian  of  its  course, 
and  its  shadows  fall  eastward. 

Is  China  to  be  our  model,  or  Great  Britain?  Or, 

C 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

better  still,  are  we  to  follow  the  instincts  of  our 
own  people?  The  policy  of  isolating  ourselves  is  a 
policy  for  the  refusal  of  both  duties  and  opportuni 
ties — duties  to  foreign  nations  and  to  civilization, 
which  cannot  be  respectably  evaded ;  opportunities 
for  the  development  of  our  power  on  the  Pacific 
in  the  twentieth  century,  which  it  would  be  craven 
to  abandon.  There  has  been  a  curious  "  about  face/' 
an  absolute  reversal  of  attitude  toward  England, 
on  the  part  of  our  Little  Americans,  especially  in 
the  East  and  among  the  more  educated  classes. 
But  yesterday  nearly  all  of  them  were  pointing  to 
England  as  a  model.  There  young  men  of  edu 
cation  and  position  felt  it  a  duty  to  go  into  poli 
tics.  There  they  had  built  up  a  model  civil  ser 
vice.  There  their  cities  were  better  governed,  their 
streets  cleaner,  their  mails  more  promptly  de 
livered.  There  the  responsibilities  of  their  colonial 
system  had  enforced  the  purification  of  domestic 
politics,  the  relentless  punishment  of  corrupt  prac 
tices,  and  the  abolition  of  bribery  in  elections,  either 
by  money  or  by  office.  There  they  had  foreign 
trade,  and  a  commercial  marine,  and  a  trained 
and  efficient  foreign  service,  and  to  be  an  English 
citizen  was  to  have  a  safeguard  the  whole  world 
round.  Our  young  men  were  commended  to  their 
exam  pie;  our  legislators  were  exhorted  to  study 
their  practice  and  its  results.  Suddenly  these  same 
teachers  turn  around.  They  warn  us  against  the 
infection  of  England's  example.  They  tell  us  her 
colonial  system  is  a  failure ;  that  she  would  be 

162 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

stronger  without  her  colonies  than  with  them ;  that 
she  is  eaten  up  with  "militarism;"  that  to  keep 
Cuba  or  the  Philippines  is  what  a  selfish,  conquer 
ing,  land-grabbing,  aristocratic  government  like 
England  would  do,  and  that  her  policy  and  meth 
ods  are  utterly  incompatible  with  our  institutions. 
When  a  court  thus  reverses  itself  without  obvious 
reason  ( except  a  temporary  partisan  purpose )  ,our 
people  are  apt  to  put  their  trust  in  other  tribunals. 
"I  had  thought/' said  Wendell  Phillips,  in  his 
noted  apology  for  standing  for  the  first  time  in 
his  antislavery  life  under  the  flag  of  his  country, 
and  welcoming  the  tread  of  Massachusetts  men 
marshalled  for  war, — "I  had  thought  Massachu 
setts  wholly  choked  with  cotton-dust  and  cankered 
with  gold/'  If  Little  Americans  have  thought  so 
of  their  country  in  these  stirring  days,  and  have 
fancied  that  initial  reverses  would  induce  it  to 
abandon  its  duty,  its  rights,  and  its  great  perma 
nent  interests,  they  will  live  to  see  their  mistake. 
They  will  find  it  giving  a  deaf  ear  to  these  un 
worthy  complaints  of  temporary  trouble  or  present 
loss,  and  turning  gladly  from  all  this  incoherent 
and  resultless  clamor  to  the  new  world  opening 
around  us.  Already  it  draws  us  out  of  ourselves. 
The  provincial  isolation  is  gone;  and  provincial 
habits  of  thought  will  go.  There  is  a  larger  inter 
est  in  what  other  lands  have  to  show  and  teach ; 
a  larger  confidence  in  our  own ;  a  higher  resolve 
that  it  shall  do  its  whole  duty  to  mankind,  moral 
as  well  as  national,  in  such  fashion  as  becomes 

163 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

time's  latest  offspring  and  its  greatest.  We  are 
grown  more  nearly  citizens  of  the  world. 

This  new  knowledge,  these  new  duties  and  in 
terests,  must  have  two  effects — they  must  extend 
our  power,  influence,  and  trade,  and  they  must  ele 
vate  the  public  service.  Every  returning  soldier  or 
traveller  tells  the  same  story — that  the  very  name 
"  American  "  has  taken  a  new  significance  through 
out  the  Orient.  The  shrewd  Oriental  no  longer  re 
gards  us  as  a  second  or  third  class  Power.  He  has 
just  seen  the  only  signs  he  recognizes  of  a  nation 
that  knows  its  rights  and  dares  maintain  them, — 
a  nation  that  has  come  to  stay,  with  an  empire  of 
its  own  in  the  China  Sea,  and  a  navy  which,  from 
what  he  has  seen,  he  believes  will  be  able  to  de 
fend  it  against  the  world.  He  straightway  con 
cludes,  after  the  Oriental  fashion,  that  it  is  a  nation 
whose  citizens  must  henceforth  be  secure  in  all 
their  rights,  whose  missionaries  must  be  endured 
with  patience  and  even  protected,  and  whose  friend 
ship  must  be  sedulously  cultivated.  The  national 
prestige  is  enormously  increased,  and  trade  fol 
lows  prestige — especially  in  the  farther  East.  Not 
within  a  century,  not  during  our  whole  history, 
has  such  a  field  opened  for  our  reaping.  Planted 
directly  in  front  of  the  Chinese  colossus,  on  a  great 
territory  of  our  own,  we  have  the  first  and  best 
chance  to  profit  by  his  awakening.  Commanding 
both  sides  of  the  Pacific,  and  the  available  coal- 
supplies  on  each,  we  command  the  ocean  that,  ac 
cording  to  the  old  prediction,  is  to  bear  the  bulk 

C    164   ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

of  the  world's  commerce  in  the  twentieth  century. 
Our  remote  but  glorious  land  between  the  Sierras 
and  the  sea  may  then  become  as  busy  a  hive  as 
New  England  itself,  and  the  whole  continent  must 
take  fresh  life  from  the  generous  blood  of  this 
natural  and  necessary  commerce  between  people 
of  different  climates  and  zones. 

But  these  developments  of  power  and  trade 
are  the  least  of  the  advantages  we  may  hopefully 
expect.  The  faults  in  American  character  and  life 
which  the  Little  Americans  tell  us  prove  the  people 
unfit  for  these  duties  are  the  very  faults  that  will 
be  cured  by  them.  The  recklessness  and  heedless 
self-sufficiency  of  youth  must  disappear.  Great  re 
sponsibilities,  suddenly  devolved,  must  sober  and 
elevate  now,  as  they  have  always  done  in  natures 
not  originally  bad,  throughout  the  whole  history 
of  the  world. 

The  new  interests  abroad  must  compel  an  im 
proved  foreign  service.  It  has  heretofore  been 
worse  than  we  ever  knew,  and  also  better.  On  great 
occasions  and  in  great  fields  our  diplomatic  record 
ranks  with  the  best  in  the  world.  No  nation  stands 
higher  in  those  new  contributions  to  international 
law  which  form  the  high- water  mark  of  civilization 
from  one  generation  to  another.  At  the  same  time, 
in  fields  less  under  the  public  eye,  our  foreign 
service  has  been  haphazard  at  the  best,  and  often 
bad  beyond  belief — ludicrous  and  humiliating.  The 
harm  thus  wrought  to  our  national  good  name  and 
the  positive  injury  to  our  trade  have  been  more 

C  165  ] 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION 

than  we  realized.  We  cannot  escape  realizing  them 
now,  and  when  the  American  people  wake  up  to 
a  wrong,  they  are  apt  to  right  it. 

More  important  still  should  be  the  improvement 
in  the  general  public  service  at  horn  e  and  in  our  new 
possessions.  New  duties  must  bring  new  methods. 
Ward  politics  were  banished  from  India  and  Egypt 
as  the  price  of  successful  administration,  and  they 
must  be  excluded  from  Porto  Rico  and  Luzon.  The 
practical  common  sense  of  the  American  people 
will  soon  see  that  any  other  course  is  disastrous. 
Gigantic  business  interests  must  come  to  reinforce 
the  theorists  in  favor  of  a  reform  that  shall  really 
elevate  and  purify  the  Civil  Service. 

Hand  in  hand  with  these  benefits  to  ourselves, 
which  it  is  the  duty  of  public  servants  to  secure, 
go  benefits  to  our  new  wards  and  benefits  to  man 
kind.  There,  then,  is  what  the  United  States  is  to 
"  stand  for"  in  all  the  resplendent  future :  the  rights 
and  interests  of  its  own  government;  the  general 
welfare  of  its  own  people ;  the  extension  of  ordered 
liberty  in  the  dark  places  of  the  earth ;  the  spread 
of  civilization  and  religion,  and  a  consequent  in 
crease  in  the  sum  of  human  happiness  in  the  world. 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

THE  chaos  of  opinion  into  which  the  country 
was  thrown  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Spanish- 
American  War  ceases  to  be  wholly  without  form 
and  void.  The  discussions  of  a  year  have  clarified 
ideas;  and  on  some  points  we  may  consider  that 
the  American  people  have  substantially  reached 
definite  conclusions. 

There  is  no  need,  therefore,  to  debate  labori 
ously  whether  Dewey  was  right  in  going  to  Ma 
nila.  Everybody  now  realizes  that,  once  war  was 
begun, absolutely  the  most  efficient  means  of  mak 
ing  it  speedily  and  overwhelmingly  victorious,  as 
well  as  of  defending  the  most  exposed  half  of  our 
own  coast,  was  to  go  to  Manila. "  Find  the  Span 
ish  fleet  and  destroy  it "  was  as  wise  an  order  as 
the  President  ever  issued,  and  he  was  equally  wise 
in  choosing  the  man  to  carry  it  out. 

So,  also,  there  is  no  need  to  debate  whether 
Dewey  was  right  in  staying  there.  From  that  come 
his  most  enduring  laurels.  The  American  people 
admire  him  for  the  battle  which  sank  the  Spanish 
navy;  but  they  trust  and  love  him  for  the  months 
of  trial  and  triumph  that  followed.  The  Admin 
istration  that  should  have  ordered  him  to  aban 
don  the  Eastern  foothold  he  had  conquered  for 
his  country — to  sail  away  like  a  sated  pirate  from 
the  port  where  his  victory  broke  down  all  civil 
ized  authority  but  our  own,  and  his  presence  alone 
prevented  domestic  anarchy  and  foreign  spoliation 

C   169  H 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

-would  have  deserved  to  be  hooted  out  of  the 
capital. 

So,  again,  there  is  no  need  to  debate  whether  the 
Peace  Commissioners  should  have  thrown  away  in 
Paris  what  Dewey  had  won  in  Manila.  The  public 
servant  who,  without  instructions,  should  in  a  gush 
of  irresponsible  sentimentality  abandon  great  pos 
sessions  to  which  his  country  is  justly  entitled, 
whether  by  conquest  or  as  indemnity  for  unjust 
war,  would  be  not  only  an  unprofitable  but  a  faith 
less  servant.  It  was  their  obvious  duty  to  hold  what 
Dewey  had  won,  at  least  till  the  American  people 
had  time  to  consider  and  decide  otherwise. 

Is  there  any  need  to  debate  whether  the  Amer 
ican  people  will  abandon  it  now?  Those  who  have 
a  fancy  for  that  species  of  dialectics  may  weigh  the 
chances,  and  evolve  from  circumstances  of  their 
own  imagination,  and  canons  of  national  and  in 
ternational  obligation  of  their  own  manufacture, 
conclusions  to  their  own  liking.  I  need  not  con 
sume  much  time  in  that  unprofitable  pursuit.  We 
may  as  well,  here  and  now,  keep  our  feet  on  solid 
ground,  and  deal  with  facts  as  they  are.  The  Amer 
ican  people  are  in  lawful  possession  of  the  Phil 
ippines,  with  the  assent  of  all  Christendom,  with  a 
title  as  indisputable  as  the  title  to  California;  and, 
though  the  debate  will  linger  for  a  while,  and  per 
haps  drift  unhappily  into  partisan  contention,  the 
generation  is  yet  unborn  that  will  see  them  aban 
doned  to  the  possession  of  any  other  Power.  The 
nation  that  scatters  principalities  as  a  prodigal  does 

C  '70  J 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

his  inheritance  is  too  sentimental  and  moon  shiny 
for  the  nineteenth  century  or  the  twentieth,  and 
too  unpractical  for  Americans  of  any  period.  It 
may  flourish  in  Arcadia  or  Altruria,  but  it  does  not 
among  the  sons  of  the  Pilgrims,  or  on  the  conti 
nent  they  subdued  by  stern  struggle  to  the  uses 
of  civilization. 

Nevertheless,  our  people  did  stop  to  consider 
very  carefully  their  constitutional  powers.  I  believe 
we  have  reached  a  point  also  where  the  result  of 
that  consideration  maybe  safely  assumed.  The  con 
stitutional  arguments  have  been  fully  presented 
and  the  expositions  and  decisions  marshalled.  It 
is  enough  now  to  say  that  the  preponderance  of 
constitutional  authorities,  with  Gouverneur  Mor 
ris,  Daniel  Webster,  and  Thomas  H.  Benton  at 
their  head,  and  the  unbroken  tendency  of  decisions 
by  the  courts  of  the  United  States  for  at  least  the 
last  fifty  years,  from  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Waite  and 
Mr.  Justice  Miller  and  Mr.  Justice  Stanley  Mat 
thews  of  the  Supreme  Court,  down  to  the  very 
latest  utterance  on  the  subject,  that  of  Mr.  Jus 
tice  Morrow  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals, 
sustain  the  power  to  acquire  "territory  or  other 
property"  anywhere,  and  govern  it  as  we  please. 
Inhabitants  of  such  territory  ( not  obviously  inca 
pable  )  are  secure  in  the  civil  rights  guaranteed  by 
the  Constitution ;  but  they  have  no  political  rights 
under  it,  save  as  Congress  confers  them.  The  evi 
dence  in  support  of  this  view  has  been  fully  set 
forth, examined, and  weighed,  and, unless  I  greatly 

C   171    ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

mistake,  a  popular  decision  on  the  subject  has  been 
reached.  The  constitutional  power  is  no  longer 
seriously  disputed,  and  even  those  who  raised  the 
doubt  do  not  seem  now  to  rely  upon  it. 

In  thus  summarizing  what  has  been  already 
settled  or  disposed  of  in  our  dealings  with  the 
questions  of  the  war,  I  may  be  permitted  to  pause 
for  a  moment  on  the  American  contributions  it 
brought  about  to  international  morality  and  law. 
On  the  day  on  W7hich  the  American  Peace  Com 
missioners  to  Paris  sailed  for  home  after  the  cere 
monial  courtesy  with  which  their  labors  were  con 
cluded,  the  most  authoritative  journal  in  the  world 
published  an  interview  with  the  eminent  presi 
dent  of  the  corresponding  Spanish  Commission, 
then  and  for  some  time  afterward  president  also 
of  the  Spanish  Senate,  in  which  he  was  reported  as 
saying:  "  We  knew  in  advance  that  we  should  have 
to  deal  with  an  implacable  conqueror,  who  would 
in  no  way  concern  himself  with  any  preexisting 
international  law, but  whose  sole  object  was  to  reap 
from  victory  the  largest  possible  advantage.  This 
conception  of  international  law  is  absolutely  new; 
it  is  no  longer  a  case  of  might  against  right,  but 
of  might  without  right.  .  .  .  The  Americans  have 
acted  as  vainqueurs  parvenus." 

Much  may  be  pardoned  to  the  anguish  of  an  old 
and  trusted  public  servant  over  the  misfortunes  of 
his  native  land.  We  may  even,  in  our  sympathy, 

1  London  Times,  December  17,  1898. 

C   17*  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

endeavor  to  forget  what  country  it  was  that  pro 
posed  to  defy  the  agreements  of  the  conference 
of  Paris  and  the  general  judgment  of  nations  by 
resorting  to  privateering,  or  what  country  it  was 
that  preferred  to  risk  becoming  an  asylum  for  the 
criminals  of  a  continent  rather  than  revive,  even 
temporarily,  that  basic  and  elementary  imple 
ment  of  modern  international  justice,  an  extra 
dition  treaty,  which  had  been  in  force  with  ac 
ceptable  results  for  over  twenty  years.  But  when 
Americans  are  stigmatized  as  "vainqueurs  par 
venus,"  who  by  virtue  of  mere  strength  violate 
international  law  against  a  prostrate  foe,  and 
when  one  of  the  ablest  of  their  American  critics 
encourages  the  Spanish  contention  by  talking  of 
our  "bulldog  diplomacy  at  Paris/'  it  gives  us 
occasion  to  challenge  the  approval  of  the  world 
— as  the  facts  amply  warrant — for  the  scrupulous 
conformity  to  existing  international  law,  and  the 
important  contributions  to  its  beneficent  advance 
ment,  that  have  distinguished  the  action  of  the 
United  States  throughout  these  whole  transac 
tions.  Having  already  set  these  forth  in  some  de 
tail  before  a  foreign  audience,1 1  must  not  now  do 
more  than  offer  the  briefest  summary. 

The  United  States  ended  the  toleration  of  priva 
teering.  It  was  perfectly  free  to  commission  pri 
vateers  on  the  day  war  was  declared.  Spain  was 
equally  free,  and  it  was  proclaimed  from  Madrid 

"Some  Consequences  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,"  The  Anglo-Saxon  Re 
view,  London,  June,  1899. 

173 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

that  the  Atlantic  would  soon  swarm  with  them, 
sweeping  American  commerce  from  the  ocean. 
Under  these  circumstances,  one  of  the  very  first 
and  noblest  acts  of  the  President  was  to  announce 
that  the  United  States  would  not  avail  itself  of  the 
right  to  send  out  privateers,  reserved  under  the 
Declaration  of  Paris.  The  fast-thickening  disasters 
of  Spain  prevented  her  from  doing  it,  and  thus  sub 
stantially  completed  the  practice  or  acquiescence 
of  the  civilized  world,  essential  to  the  acceptance 
of  a  principle  in  international  law.  It  is  safe  to 
assume  that  Christendom  will  henceforth  treat 
privateering  as  under  international  ban. 

The  United  States  promoted  the  cause  of  gen 
uine  international  arbitration  by  promptly  and 
emphatically  rejecting  an  insidious  proposal  for  a 
spurious  one.  It  taught  those  who  deliberately  pre 
fer  war  to  arbitration,  and,  when  beaten  at  it,  seek 
then  to  get  the  benefit  of  a  second  remedy,  that 
honest  arbitration  must  come  before  war,  to  avert 
its  horrors,  not  after  war,  to  evade  its  penalties. 

The  United  States  promoted  peace  among  na 
tions,  and  so  served  humanity  by  sternly  enforcing 
the  rule  that  they  who  bring  on  an  unjust  war  must 
pay  for  it.  For  years  the  overwhelming  tendency 
of  its  people  had  been  against  any  territorial  ag 
grandizement,  even  a  peaceful  one ;  but  it  unflinch 
ingly  exacted  the  easiest,  if  not  the  only,  payment 
Spain  could  make  for  a  war  that  cost  us,  at  the 
lowest,  from  four  to  five  hundred  million  dollars, 
by  taking  Porto  Rico,  Guam,  and  the  Philippines. 

C    *74   H 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

It  requires  some  courage  to  describe  this  as  either 
a  violation  of  international  law,  or  a  display  of  un 
precedented  severity  by  an  implacable  conqueror, 
in  the  very  city  and  before  the  very  generation 
that  saw  the  Franco-Prussian  War  concluded,  not 
merely  by  a  partition  of  territory,  but  also  by  a 
cash  payment  of  a  thousand  millions  indemnity. 

The  United  States  promoted  the  peaceful  liber 
alizing  of  oppressive  rule  over  all  subject  peoples 
by  making  it  more  difficult  to  negotiate  loans  in  the 
markets  of  the  world  to  subdue  their  outbreaks. 
For  it  firmly  rejected  in  the  Cuban  adjustments 
the  immoral  doctrine  that  an  ill-treated  and  revolt 
ing  colony,  after  gaining  its  freedom,  must  still 
submit  to  the  extortion  from  it  of  the  cost  of  the 
parent  country's  unsuccessful  efforts  to  subdue  it. 
We  therefore  left  the  so-called  Cuban  bonds  on 
the  hands  of  the  Power  that  issued  them,  or  of  the 
reckless  lenders  who  advanced  the  money.  At  the 
same  time  the  United  States  strained  a  point  else 
where  in  the  direction  of  protecting  any  legitimate 
debt,  and  of  dealing  generously  with  a  fallen  foe, 
by  a  payment  which  the  most  carping  critic  will 
some  day  be  ashamed  to  describe  as  "buying  in 
habitants  of  the  Philippines  at  two  dollars  a  head." 

1  There  has  been  so  much  misconception  and  misrepresentation  about  this 
payment  of  twenty  millions  that  the  following  exact  summary  of  the  facts 
may  be  convenient : 

When  Spain  sued  for  peace  in  the  summer  of  1898,  she  had  lost  con 
trol  of  the  Philippines,  and  any  means  for  regaining  control.  Her  fleet 
was  sunk ;  her  army  was  cooped  up  in  the  capital,  under  the  guns  of  the 
American  fleet,  and  its  capture  or  surrender  had  only  been  delayed  till  the 
arrival  of  reinforcements  for  the  American  army,  because  of  the  fears 

c  175 : 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

All  these  are  acts  distinctly  in  accord  with  in 
ternational  law  so  far  as  it  exists  and  applies,  and 
distinctly  tending  to  promote  its  humane  and 
Christian  extension.  Let  me  add,  in  a  word,  that 
the  peace  negotiations  in  no  way  compromised 
or  affected  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  stands  as 
firm  as  ever,  though  much  less  important  with  the 

expressed  by  foreigners  and  the  principal  residents  of  Manila  that  the  city 
might  be  looted  by  the  natives  unless  American  land  forces  were  at  hand 
in  strength  ample  to  control  them.  The  Spanish  army  did  so  surrender, 
in  fact,  shortly  after  the  arrival  of  these  reinforcements,  before  the  news 
of  the  armistice  could  reach  them. 

In  the  protocol  granting  an  armistice,  the  United  States  exacted  at  once 
the  cession  of  Porto  Rico  and  an  island  in  the  Ladrones,  but  reserved  the 
decision  as  to  the  control,  disposition,  and  government  of  the  Philippines 
for  the  treaty  of  peace,  apparently  with  a  view  to  the  possibility  of  accept 
ing  them  as  further  indemnity  for  the  war. 

When  the  treaty  came  to  be  negotiated,  the  United  States  required  the 
cession  of  the  Philippines.  Its  Peace  Commissioners  stated  that  their  gov 
ernment  "  felt  amply  supported  in  its  right  to  demand  this  cession,  with 
or  without  concessions, ' '  added  that  '  *  this  demand  might  be  limited  to 
the  single  ground  of  indemnity,"  and  pointed  out  that  it  was  "not  now 
putting  forward  any  claim  for  fiecuniary  indemnity,  to  cover  the  enor 
mous  cost  of  the  war."  It  accompanied  this  demand  for  a  transfer  of  sov 
ereignty  with  a  stipulation  for  assuming  any  existing  indebtedness  of  Spain 
incurred  for  public  works  and  improvements  of  a  pacific  character  in  the 
Philippines.  The  United  States  thus  asserted  its  right  to  the  archipelago 
for  indemnity,  and  at  the  same  time  committed  itself  to  the  principle  of 
payment  on  account  of  the  Philippine  debt. 

When  it  became  necessary  to  put  the  Philippine  case  into  an  ultima 
tum  the  Peace  Commissioners  did  not  further  refer  to  the  debt  or  give  any 
specific  reason  either  for  a  cession  or  for  a  payment.  They  simply  said 
they  now  presented  "a  new  proposition,  embodying  the  concessions  which, 
for  the  sake  of  immediate  peace,  their  government  is,  under  the  circum 
stances,  willing  to  tender." 

But  it  was  really  the  old  proposition  (with  the  "Open  Door  "  and  "Mu 
tual  Relinquishment  of  Claims"  clauses  added) ,  with  the  mention  for  the 
first  time  of  a  specific  sum  for  the  payment,  and  without  any  question  of 
"pacific  improvements."  That  sum  just  balanced  the  Philippine  debt — 
40,000,000  Mexican,  or,  say,  20,000,000  American  dollars. 

176  U 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

disappearance  of  any  probable  opposition  to  it; 
and  that  the  prestige  they  brought  smoothed  the 
way  for  the  one  hopeful  result  of  the  Czar's  con 
ference  at  The  Hague,  a  response  to  the  American 
proposal  for  a  permanent  International  Court  of 
Arbitration. 

A  trifling  but  characteristic  inaccuracy  concern 
ing  the  Peace  Commission  may  as  well  be  cor 
rected  before  the  subject  is  left.  This  is  the  state 
ment,  apparently  originating  from  Malay  sources, 
but  promptly  indorsed  in  this  country  by  unfriendly 
critics,  to  the  effect  that  the  representative  of  Agui- 
naldo  was  uncivilly  refused  a  hearing  in  Paris. 
It  was  repeated,  inadvertently,  no  doubt,  with 
many  other  curious  distortions  of  historic  facts, 
by  a  distinguished  statesman  in  Chicago.1  As  he 
puts  it,  the  doors  were  slammed  in  their  faces  in 
Washington  as  well  as  in  Paris.  Now,  whatever 
might  have  happened,  the  door  was  certainly  never 
slammed  in  their  faces  in  Paris,  for  they  never 
came  to  it.  On  the  contrary,  every  time  Mr.  Agon- 
cillo  approached  any  member  of  the  Commission 
on  the  subject,  he  was  courteously  invited  to  send 
the  Commissioners  a  written  request  for  a  hear 
ing,  which  would,  at  any  rate,  receive  immediate 
consideration.  No  such  request  ever  came,  and  any 
Filipino  who  wrote  for  a  hearing  in  Paris  was  heard. 

Meanwhile  we  are  now  in  the  midst  of  hostil 
ities  with  a  part  of  the  native  population,  origi- 

1  General  Carl  Schurz,  at  the  Chicago  Anti-Expansion  Convention,  Octo 
ber,  1899. 

C   m  3 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

nating  in  an  unprovoked  attack  upon  our  troops 
in  the  city  they  had  wrested  from  the  Spaniards, 
before  final  action  on  the  treaty.  It  is  easy  to  say 
that  we  ought  not  to  have  got  into  this  conflict, 
and  to  that  I  might  agree.  "I  tell  you,  they  can't 
put  you  in  jail  on  that  charge,"  said  the  learned 
and  disputatious  counsel  to  the  client  who  had 
appealed  from  his  cell  for  help.  "But  I  am  in," 
was  the  sufficient  answer.  The  question  just  then 
was  not  what  might  have  been  done,  but  what 
can  be  done.  I  wish  to  urge  that  we  can  only  end 
this  conflict  by  manfully  fighting  through  it.  The 
talk  one  hears  that  the  present  situation  calls  for 
"diplomacy"  seems  to  be  mistimed.  That  species 
of  diplomacy  which  consists  in  the  tact  of  prompt 
action  in  the  right  line  at  the  right  time  might, 
quite  possibly,  have  prevented  the  present  hos 
tilities.  Any  diplomacy  now  would  seem  to  our 
Tagal  antagonists  the  raising  of  the  white  flag — 
the  final  proof  that  the  American  people  do  not 
sustain  their  army  in  the  face  of  unprovoked  attack. 
Every  witness  who  came  before  the  American 
Peace  Commission  in  Paris,  or  sent  it  a  written 
statement,  English,  German,  Belgian,  Malay,  or 
American,  said  the  same  thing.  Absolutely  the 
one  essential  for  dealing  with  the  Filipinos  was 
to  convince  them  at  the  very  outset  that  what  you 
began,  you  stood  to;  that  you  did  not  begin  with 
out  consideration  of  right  and  duty,  or  quail  then 
before  opposition ;  that  your  purpose  was  inex 
orable  and  your  power  irresistible,  while  submis- 

C   178  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

sion  to  it  would  always  insure  justice.  On  the  con 
trary,  once  let  them  suspect  that  protests  would 
dissuade  and  turbulence  deter  you,  and  all  the 
Oriental  instinct  for  delay  and  bargaining  for  bet 
ter  terms  is  aroused  along  with  the  special  Malay 
genius  for  intrigue  and  double-dealing,  their  pro 
found  belief  that  every  man  has  his  price,  and 
their  childish  ignorance  as  to  the  extent  to  which 
stump  speeches  here  against  any  Administration 
can  cause  American  armies  beyond  the  seas  to 
retreat. 

No;  the  toast  which  Henry  Clay  once  gave  in 
honor  of  an  early  naval  hero  fits  the  present  situ 
ation  like  a  glove.  He  proposed  "  the  policy  which 
looks  to  peace  as  the  end  of  war,  and  war  as  the 
means  of  peace/'  In  that  light  I  maintain  that  the 
conflict  we  are  prosecuting  is  in  the  line  of  national 
necessity  and  duty;  that  we  cannot  turn  back; 
that  the  truest  humanity  condemns  needless  delay 
or  half-hearted  action,  and  demands  overwhelm 
ing  forces  and  irresistible  onset. 

But  in  considering  this  duty,  just  as  in  estimat 
ing  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  we  have  the  right  to  elimi 
nate  all  account  of  the  trifling  success,  so  far,  in  the 
Philippines,  or  of  the  great  trouble  and  cost.  What 
it  was  right  to  do  there,  and  what  we  are  bound  to 
do  now,  must  not  be  obscured  by  faults  of  hesita 
tion  or  insufficient  preparation,  for  which  neither 
the  Peace  Commissioners  nor  the  people  are  re 
sponsible.  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  before  what 
I  now  repeat  with  the  additional  emphasis  subse- 

C  179  H 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

quent  events  have  warranted — that  the  difficulties 
which  at  present  discourage  us  are  largely  of  our 
own  making ;  and  I  repeat  that  it  is  still  not  for  us, 
here  and  now,  to  apportion  the  blame.  We  have  not 
the  knowledge  to  say  just  who,  or  whether  any 
man  or  body,  is  wholly  at  fault.  What  we  do  know 
is  that  the  course  of  hesitation  and  inaction  which 
the  nation  pursued  in  face  of  an  openly  maturing 
attack  was  precisely  the  policy  sure  to  give  us  the 
greatest  trouble,  and  that  we  are  now  paying  the 
penalty.  If  the  opposite  course  had  been  taken  at 
the  outset, — unless  all  the  testimony  from  foreign 
observers  and  from  our  own  officers  is  at  fault, — 
there  would  have  been  either  no  outbreak  at  all, 
or  only  one  easily  controlled  and  settled  to  the 
general  satisfaction  of  most  of  the  civilized  and 
semi-civilized  inhabitants  of  the  island. 

On  the  personal  and  partisan  disputes  already 
lamentably  begun,  as  to  senatorial  responsibility, 
congressional  responsibility,  or  the  responsibility 
of  this  or  that  executive  officer,  we  have  no  occa 
sion  here  to  enter.  What  we  have  a  right  to  insist 
on  is  that  our  general  policy  in  the  Philippines  shall 
not  be  shaped  now  merely  by  the  just  discontent 
with  the  bad  start.  The  reports  of  continual  victo 
ries  that  roll  back  on  us  every  week,  like  the  stone 
of  Sisyphus,  and  need  to  be  won  over  again  next 
week;  the  mistakes  of  a  censorship  that  was  abso 
lutely  right  as  a  military  measure,  but  may  have 
been  unintelligently,  not  to  say  childishly,  con 
ducted, — all  these  are  beside  the  real  question. 

[   180   ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

They  must  not  obscure  the  duty  of  restoring  order 
in  the  regions  where  our  troops  have  been  assailed, 
or  prejudice  our  subsequent  course. 

I  venture  to  say  of  that  course  that  neither  our 
duty  nor  our  interest  will  permit  us  to  stop  short  of 
a  pacification  which  can  end  only  in  the  establish 
ment  of  such  local  self-government  as  the  people 
are  found  capable  of  conducting,  and  its  extension 
just  as  far  and  as  fast  as  the  people  prove  fit  for  it. 

The  natural  development  thus  to  be  expected 
would  probably  proceed  safely  along  the  lines  of 
least  resistance,  about  in  this  order:  First,  and  till 
entirely  clear  that  it  is  no  longer  needed,  military 
government.  Next,  the  rule  of  either  military  or 
civil  governors  (for  a  considerable  time  probably 
the  former ),  relying  gradually  more  and  more  on 
native  agencies.  Thirdly,  the  development  of  de 
pendencies,  with  an  American  civil  governor,  with 
their  foreign  relations  and  their  highest  courts  con 
trolled  by  us,  and  their  financial  system  largely 
managed  by  members  of  a  rigidly  organized  and 
jealously  protected  American  Civil  Service,  but  in 
most  other  respects  steadily  becoming  more  self- 
governing.  And, finally ,  autonomous  governments, 
looking  to  us  for  little  save  control  of  their  foreign 
relations,  profiting  by  the  stability  and  order  the 
backing  of  a  powerful  nation  guarantees,  cultivat 
ing  more  and  more  intimate  trade  and  personal 
relations  with  that  nation,  and  coming  to  feel  them 
selves  participants  of  its  fortunes  and  renown. 

Such  a  course  Congress,  after  full  investigation 
C   '81    1 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

and  deliberation,  might  perhaps  wisely  formulate. 
Such  a  course,  with  slight  modifications  to  meet 
existing  limitations  as  to  his  powers,  has  already 
been  entered  upon  by  the  President,  and  can  doubt 
less  be  carried  on  indefinitely  by  him  until  Con 
gress  acts.  This  action  should  certainly  not  be  pre 
cipitate.  The  system  demands  most  careful  study, 
not  only  in  the  light  of  what  the  English  and  Dutch, 
the  most  successful  holders  of  tropical  countries, 
have  done,  but  also  in  the  light  of  the  peculiar  and 
varied  circumstances  that  confront  us  on  these  dif 
ferent  and  distant  islands,  and  among  these  widely 
differing  races, — circumstances  to  which  no  pre 
vious  experience  exactly  applies,  and  for  which  no 
uniform  system  could  be  applicable.  If  Congress 
should  take  as  long  a  time  before  action  to  study 
the  problem  as  it  has  taken  in  the  Sandwich  Islands, 
or  even  in  Alaska,  the  President's  power  would 
still  be  equal  to  the  emergency,  and  the  policy, 
while  flexible,  could  still  be  made  as  continuous, 
coherent,  and  practical  as  his  best  information  and 
ability  would  permit. 

Against  such  a  conscientious  and  painstaking 
course,  in  dealing  with  the  grave  responsibilities 
that  are  upon  us  in  the  East,  two  lines  of  evasion 
are  sure  to  threaten.  The  one  is  the  policy  of  the 
upright  but  short-sighted  and  strictly  continental 
patriot — the  same  which  an  illustrious  statesman 
of  another  country  followed  in  the  Sudan:  "  Scuttle 
as  quick  as  you  can/' 

The  other  is  the  policy  of  the  exuberant  patriot 
[  182  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

who  believes  in  the  universal  adaptability  and  im 
mediate  extension  of  American  institutions.  He 
thinks  all  men  everywhere  as  fit  to  vote  as  him 
self  and  wants  them  for  partners.  He  is  eager  to 
have  them  prepare  at  once, in  our  new  possessions, 
first  in  the  West  Indies,  then  in  the  East,  to  send 
Senators  and  Representatives  to  Congress,  and  his 
policy  is: "  Make  territories  of  them  now, and  states 
in  the  American  Union  as  soon  as  possible/'  I  wish 
to  speak  with  the  utmost  respect  of  the  sincere 
advocates  of  both  theories,  but  must  say  that  the 
one  seems  to  me  to  fall  short  of  a  proper  regard  for 
either  our  duty  or  our  interest,  and  the  other  to  be 
national  suicide. 

Gentlemen  in  whose  ability  and  patriotism  we 
all  have  confidence  have  put  the  first  of  these 
policies  for  evading  our  duty  in  the  form  of  a  pro 
test  "against  the  expansions  and  establishment  of 
the  dominion  of  the  United  States,  by  conquest  or 
otherwise,  over  unwilling  peoples  in  any  part  of 
the  globe/'  Of  this  it  may  be  said,  first,  that 
any  application  of  it  to  the  Philippines  probably 
assumes  a  factional  and  temporary  outbreak  to  re 
present  a  settled  unwillingness.  New  Orleans  was 
as  "unwilling/'  when  Mr.  Jefferson  annexed  it, 
as  Aguinaldo  has  made  Manila;  and  Aaron  Burr 
came  near  making  the  whole  Louisiana  territory 
far  worse.  Mr.  Lincoln  always  believed  the  people 
of  North  Carolina  not  unwilling  to  remain  in  the 
Union,  yet  we  know  what  they  did.  But  next,  this 
protest  contemplates  evading  the  present  respon- 

C 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

sibility  by  a  reversal  of  our  settled  policy  any  way. 
Mr.  Lincoln  probably  never  doubted  the  unwilling 
ness  of  South  Carolina  to  remain  in  the  Union,  but 
that  did  not  change  his  course.  Mr.  Seward  never 
inquired  whether  the  Alaskans  were  unwilling  or 
not.  The  historic  position  of  the  United  States,  from 
the  day  when  Jefferson  braved  the  envenomed 
anti-expansion  sentiment  of  his  time  and  bought 
the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  on  down,  has 
been  to  consider,  not  the  willingness  or  unwill 
ingness  of  any  inhabitants,  whether  aboriginal  or 
colonists,  but  solely  our  national  opportunity,  our 
own  duty,  and  our  own  interests. 

Is  it  said  that  this  is  Imperialism  ?  That  implies 
usurpation  of  power,  and  there  is  absolutely  no 
ground  for  such  a  charge  against  this  Administra 
tion  at  any  one  stage  in  these  whole  transactions. 
If  any  complaint  here  is  to  lie,  it  must  relate  to  the 
critical  period  when  we  were  accepting  the  respon 
sibility  for  order  at  Manila,  and  must  be  for  the 
exercise  of  too  little  power,  not  too  much.  It  is  not 
imperialism  to  take  up  honestly  the  responsibility 
for  order  we  incurred  before  the  world,  and  con 
tinue  under  it,  even  if  that  should  lead  us  to  ex 
tend  the  civil  rights  of  the  American  Constitution 
over  new  regions  and  strange  peoples.  It  is  not 
imperialism  when  duty  keeps  us  among  these  cha 
otic,  warring,  distracted  tribes,  civilized,  semi-civ 
ilized,  and  barbarous,  to  help  them,  as  far  as  their 
several  capacities  will  permit,  toward  self-govern 
ment  on  the  basis  of  those  civil  rights. 

C  184  n 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

A  terser  and  more  taking  statement  of  oppo 
sition  has  been  attributed  to  a  gentleman  highly 
honored  by  Princeton  University  and  by  his  towns 
men  there.  I  gladly  seize  this  opportunity,  as  a  con 
sistent  opponent  during  his  whole  political  life,  to 
add  that  his  words  carry  great  weight  throughout 
the  country  by  reason  of  the  unquestioned  ability, 
courage,  and  patriotic  devotion  he  has  brought  to 
the  public  service.  He  is  reported  as  protesting 
simply  against  "the  use  of  power  in  the  extension 
of  American  institutions/'  But  does  not  this,  if  ap 
plied  to  the  present  situation,  seem  also  to  miss  an 
important  distinction  ?  What  planted  us  in  the  Phil 
ippines  was  the  use  of  our  power  in  the  most  efficient 
naval  and  military  defence  then  available  for  our 
own  institutions  where  they  already  exist,  against 
the  attack  of  Spain.  If  the  responsibility  entailed  by 
the  result  of  these  acts  in  our  own  defence  does 
involve  some  extension  of  our  institutions,  shall 
we  therefore  run  away  from  it?  If  a  guarantee  to 
chaotic  tribes  of  the  civil  rights  secured  by  the 
American  Constitution  does  prove  to  be  an  inci 
dent  springing  from  the  discharge  of  the  duty  that 
has  rested  upon  us  from  the  moment  we  drove 
Spain  out,  is  that  a  result  so  objectionable  as  to 
warrant  us  in  abandoning  our  duty? 

There  is,  it  is  true,  one  other  alternative — the 
one  which  Aguinaldo  himself  is  said  to  have  sug 
gested,  and  which  has  certainly  been  put  forth  in 
his  behalf  with  the  utmost  simplicity  and  sincerity 
by  a  conspicuous  statesman  at  Chicago.  We  might 

185 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

at  once  solicit  peace  from  Aguinaldo.  We  might 
then  encourage  him  to  extend  his  rule  over  the 
whole  country, — Catholic,  pagan,  and  Mohamme 
dan,  willing  and  unwilling  alike, — and  promise 
him  whatever  aid  might  be  necessary  for  that  task. 
Meantime,  we  should  undertake  to  protect  him 
against  outside  interference  from  any  European 
or  Asiatic  nation  whose  interests  on  that  oceanic 
highway  and  in  those  commercial  capitals  might 
be  imperilled  I1 1  do  not  desire  to  discuss  that  prop 
osition.  And  I  submit  to  candid  men  that  there  are 
just  those  three  courses,  and  no  more,  now  open 
to  us — to  run  away,  to  protect  Aguinaldo,  or  to 
back  up  our  own  army  and  firmly  hold  on ! 

If  this  fact  be  clearly  perceived,  if  the  choice 
between  these  three  courses  be  once  recognized 
as  the  only  choice  the  present  situation  permits, 
our  minds  will  be  less  disturbed  by  the  confused 
cries  of  perplexity  and  discontent  that  still  fill  the 
air.  Thus  men  often  say,  "  If  you  believe  in  liberty 
for  yourself,  why  refuse  it  to  the  Tagals?"That 
is  right;  they  should  have, in  the  degree  of  their 
capacity,  the  only  kind  of  liberty  worth  having  in 
the  world,  the  only  kind  that  is  not  a  curse  to 
its  possessors  and  to  all  in  contact  with  them  — 
ordered  liberty,  under  law,  for  which  the  wisdom 
of  man  has  not  yet  found  a  better  safeguard  than 
the  guarantees  of  civil  rights  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Who  supposes  that  to  be  the 

1  The  exact  proposition  made  by  General  Carl  Schurz  in  addressing  the 
Chicago  Anti-Expansion  Convention,  October,  1899. 

:  186  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

liberty  for  which  Aguinaldo  is  fighting  ?  What  his 
people  want,  and  what  the  statesman  at  Chicago 
wishes  us  to  use  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United 
States  to  help  him  get,  is  the  liberty  to  rule  others, 
—the  liberty  first  to  turn  our  own  troops  out  of  the 
city  and  harbor  we  had  in  our  own  self-defence 
captured  from  their  enemies;  the  liberty  next  to 
rule  that  great  commercial  city,  and  the  tribes 
of  the  interior,  instead  of  leaving  us  to  exercise 
the  rule  over  them  that  events  have  forced  upon 
us,  till  it  is  fairly  shown  that  they  can  rule  them 
selves. 

Again  it  is  said, "  You  are  depriving  them  of 
freedom/'  But  they  never  had  freedom,  and  could 
not  have  it  now.  Even  if  they  could  subdue  the 
other  tribes  in  Luzon,  they  could  not  establish 
such  order  on  the  other  islands  and  in  the  waters 
of  the  archipelago  as  to  deprive  foreign  Powers 
of  an  immediate  excuse  for  interference.  What  we 
are  doing  is  in  the  double  line  of  preventing  other 
wise  inevitable  foreign  seizure  and  putting  a  stop 
to  domestic  war. 

"But  you  cannot  fit  people  for  freedom.  They 
must  fit  themselves,  just  as  we  must  do  our  own 
crawling  and  stumbling  in  order  to  learn  to  walk/' 
The  illustration  is  unfortunate.  Must  the  crawl 
ing  baby,  then,  be  abandoned  by  its  natural  or 
accidental  guardian,  and  left  to  itself  to  grow 
strong  by  struggling,  or  to  perish,  as  may  happen  ? 
Must  we  turn  the  Tagals  loose  on  the  foreigners 
in  Manila,  and  on  their  enemies  in  the  other  tribes, 

C   187  n 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

that  by  following  their  instincts  they  may  fit  them 
selves  for  freedom? 

Again,  "  It  will  injure  us  to  exert  power  over  an 
unwilling  people,  just  as  slavery  injured  the  slave 
holders  themselves/'  Then  a  community  is  injured 
by  maintaining  a  police.  Then  a  court  is  injured  by 
rendering  a  just  decree,  and  an  officer  by  execut 
ing  it.  Then  it  is  a  greater  injury,  for  instance,  to 
stop  piracy  than  to  suffer  from  it.  Then  the  manly 
exercise  of  a  just  responsibility  enfeebles  instead  of 
developing  and  strengthening  a  nation. 

"  Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed/'  "No  man  is  good 
enough  to  govern  another  against  his  will."  Great 
truths,  from  men  whose  greatness  and  moral  ele 
vation  the  world  admires.  But  there  is  a  higher 
authority  than  Jefferson  or  Lincoln,  Who  said:  "If 
a  man  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him 
the  other  also."  Yet  he  who  acted  literally  on  even 
that  divine  injunction  toward  the  Malays  would 
be  a  congenital  idiot  to  begin  with,  and  his  corpse, 
while  it  lasted,  would  remain  an  object-lesson  of 
how  not  to  deal  with  the  present  stage  of  Malay 
civilization  and  Christianity. 

Why  mourn  over  our  present  course  as  a  de 
parture  from  the  policy  of  the  Fathers  ?  For  a  hun 
dred  years  the  uniform  policy  which  they  began 
and  their  sons  continued  has  been  acquisition,  ex 
pansion,  annexation,  reaching  out  to  remote  wil 
dernesses  far  more  distant  and  inaccessible  then 
than  the  Philippines  are  now — to  disconnected 

C  188  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

regions  like  Alaska,  to  island  regions  like  Midway, 
the  Guano  Islands,  the  Aleutians,  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  and  even  to  quasi  protectorates  like  Libe 
ria  and  Samoa.  Why  mourn  because  of  the  pre 
cedent  we  are  establishing?  The  precedent  was 
established  before  we  were  born.  Why  distress 
ourselves  with  the  thought  that  this  is  only  the 
beginning,  that  it  opens  the  door  to  unlimited  ex 
pansion  ?  The  door  is  wide  open  now,  and  has  been 
ever  since  Livingston  in  Paris  jumped  at  Talley 
rand's  offer  to  sell  him  the  wilderness  west  of  the 
Mississippi  instead  of  the  settlements  eastward  to 
Florida,  which  we  had  been  trying  to  get;  and 
Jefferson  eagerly  sustained  him.  For  the  rest, 
the  task  that  is  laid  upon  us  now  is  not  proving  so 
easy  as  to  warrant  this  fear  that  we  shall  soon  be 
seeking  unlimited  repetitions  of  it. 

That  danger,  in  fact,  can  come  only  if  we  shirk 
our  present  duty  by  the  second  of  the  two  alter 
native  methods  of  evasion  I  have  mentioned — the 
one  favored  by  the  exuberant  patriot  who  wants  to 
clasp  Cuban,  Kanaka,  andTagal  alike  to  his  bosom 
as  equal  partners  with  ourselves  in  our  inheritance 
from  the  Fathers,  and  take  them  all  into  the  Union 
as  states. 

We  will  be  wise  to  open  our  eyes  at  once  to  the 
gravity  and  the  insidious  character  of  this  danger 
-the  very  worst  that  could  threaten  the  American 
Union.  Once  begun,  the  rivalry  of  parties  and  the 
fears  of  politicians  would  insure  its  continuance. 
With  Idaho  and  Wyoming  admitted,  they  did  not 

C  189  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

dare  prolong  the  exclusion  even  of  Utah,  and  so 
we  have  the  shame  of  seeing  an  avowed  polyga- 
mist  with  &prima facie  right  to  sit  in  our  Congress 
as  a  legislator  not  merely  for  Utah,  but  for  the 
whole  Union.  At  this  moment  scarcely  a  politician 
dares  frankly  avow  unalterable  opposition  to  the 
admission  of  Cuba,  if  she  should  seek  it.  Yet,  bad  as 
that  would  be,  it  would  necessarily  lead  to  worse. 
Others  in  the  West  Indies  might  not  linger  long 
behind.  In  any  event,  with  Cuba  a  state,  Porto  Rico 
could  not  be  kept  a  territory.  No  more  could 
the  Sandwich  Islands.  And  then,  looming  direct 
in  our  path,  like  a  volcano  rising  out  of  the  mist  on 
the  affrighted  vision  of  mariners  tempest-tossed  in 
tropic  seas,  is  the  spectre  of  such  states  as  Luzon, 
and  the  Visayas  and  Haiti. 

They  would  have  precedents,  too,  to  quote,  and 
dangerous  ones.  When  we  bought  Louisiana  we 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  that  "the  inhabitants  of  the 
ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union 
of  the  United  States  and  admitted  as  soon  as  pos 
sible,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  ad 
vantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States/'  We  made  almost  identically  the  same  stip 
ulation  when  we  bought  Florida.  When  one  of  the 
most  respected  in  the  long  line  of  our  able  Secre 
taries  of  State,  Mr.  William  L.  Marcy,  negotiated 
a  treaty  in  1854  for  the  annexation  of  the  Sand 
wich  Islands,  he  provided  that  they  should  be  in 
corporated  as  a  state,  with  the  same  degree  of  sov- 

C 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

ereignty  as  other  states,  and  on  perfect  equality 
with  them.  The  schemes  prior  to  1 861  for  the  pur 
chase  or  annexation  of  Cuba  practically  all  looked 
to  the  same  result.  Not  till  the  annexation  of  San 
Domingo  was  proposed  did  this  feature  disappear 
from  our  treaties.  It  is  only  candid  to  add  that  the 
habit  of  regarding  this  as  the  necessary  destiny 
of  any  United  States  territory  as  soon  as  it  has 
sufficient  population  has  been  universal.  It  is  no 
modern  vagary,  but  the  practice,  if  not  the  theory, 
of  our  whole  national  life,  that  would  open  the 
doors  of  our  Senate  and  House,  and  give  a  share 
in  the  government,  to  these  wild-eyed  newcomers 
from  the  islands  of  the  sea. 

The  calamity  of  admitting  them  cannot  be  over 
rated.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  best  of  these  islands, 
it  would  demoralize  and  degrade  the  national  suf 
frage  almost  incalculably  below  the  point  already 
reached. To  the  Senate,  unwieldy  now,  and  greatly 
changed  in  character  from  the  body  contemplated 
by  the  Constitution,  it  would  be  disastrous.  For  the 
present  states  of  the  Union  it  would  be  an  act  of 
folly  like  that  of  a  business  firm  which  blindly 
steered  for  bankruptcy  by  freely  admitting  to  full 
partnership  new  members,  strangers  and  non-res 
idents,  not  only  otherwise  ill  qualified,  but  with 
absolutely  conflicting  interests.  And  it  would  be  a 
distinct  violation  of  the  clause  in  the  preamble  that 
"  we,  the  people,  ...  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America." 

There  is  the  only  safe  ground — on  the  letter 

C 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  It  contemplated 
a  continental  union  of  sovereign  states.  It  limited 
that  union  to  the  American  continent.  The  man 
that  takes  it  farther  sounds  its  death-knell. 

I  have  designedly  left  to  the  last  any  esti 
mate  of  the  material  interests  we  serve  by  holding 
on  in  our  present  course.  Whatever  these  may  be, 
they  are  only  a  subordinate  consideration.  We  are 
in  the  Philippines,  as  we  are  in  the  West  Indies, 
because  duty  sent  us;  and  we  shall  remain  because 
we  have  no  right  to  run  away  from  our  duty,  even 
if  it  does  involve  far  more  trouble  than  wre  fore 
saw  when  we  plunged  into  the  war  that  entailed 
it.  The  call  to  duty,  when  once  plainly  understood, 
is  a  call  Americans  never  fail  to  answer,  while  to 
calls  of  interest  they  have  often  shown  themselves 
incredulous  or  contemptuous. 

But  the  Constitution  we  revere  was  also  or 
dained  "to  promote  the  general  welfare/'  and  he 
is  untrue  to  its  purpose  who  squanders  opportuni 
ties.  Never  before  have  they  been  showered  upon 
us  in  such  bewildering  profusion.  Are  the  Amer 
ican  people  to  rise  to  the  occasion  ?  Are  they  to  be 
as  great  as  their  country?  Or  shall  the  historian 
record  that  at  this  unexampled  crisis  they  were 
controlled  by  timid  ideas  and  short-sighted  views, 
and  so  proved  unequal  to  the  duty  and  the  oppor 
tunity  which  unforeseen  circumstances  brought  to 
their  doors  ?  The  two  richest  archipelagoes  in  the 
world  are  practically  at  our  disposal.  The  greatest 
ocean  on  the  globe  has  been  put  in  our  hands,  the 

C  192  ] 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

ocean  that  is  to  bear  the  commerce  of  the  twen 
tieth  century.  In  the  face  of  this  prospect,  shall  we 
prefer,  with  the  teeming  population  that  century 
is  to  bring  us,  to  remain  a  "hibernating  nation, 
living  off  its  own  fat — a  hermit  nation,"  as  Mr. 
Senator  Davis  has  asked?  For  our  First  Assist 
ant  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Hill,  was  right  when 
he  said  that  not  to  enter  the  Open  Door  in  Asia 
means  the  perpetual  isolation  of  this  continent. 

Are  we  to  be  discouraged  by  the  cry  that  the 
new  possessions  are  worthless?  Not  while  we  re 
member  how  often  and  under  what  circumstances 
we  have  heard  that  cry  before.  Half  the  public  men 
of  the  period  denounced  Louisiana  as  worthless. 
Eminent  statesmen  made  merry  in  Congress  over 
the  idea  that  Oregon  or  Washington  could  be 
of  any  use.  Daniel  Webster,  in  the  most  solemn 
and  authoritative  tones  Massachusetts  has  ever 
employed,  assured  his  fellow  Senators  that,  in  his 
judgment,  California  was  not  worth  a  dollar. 

Is  it  said  that  the  commercial  opportunities  in 
the  Orient,  or  at  least  in  the  Philippines,  are  over 
rated?  So  it  used  to  be  said  of  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
But  what  does  our  experience  show  ?  Before  their 
annexation  even,  but  after  we  had  taken  this  little 
archipelago  under  our  protection  and  into  our  com 
mercial  system,  our  ocean  tonnage  in  that  trade 
became  nearly  as  heavy  as  with  Great  Britain. 
Why?  Because,  while  we  have  lost  the  trade  of 
the  Atlantic,  superior  advantages  made  the  Pacific 
ours.  Is  it  said  that  elsewhere  on  the  Pacific  we 

C 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

can  do  as  well  without  a  controlling  political  influ 
ence  as  with  it?  Look  again !  Mexico  buys  our  prod 
ucts  at  the  rate  of  $1 .95  for  each  inhabitant ;  South 
America  at  the  rate  of  90  cents;  Great  Britain  at 
the  rate  of  113.42 ;  Canada  at  the  rate  of  $14;  and 
the  Hawaiian  Islands  at  the  rate  of  $53. 35  for  each 
inhabitant.  Look  at  the  trade  of  the  chief  city  on 
the  Pacific  coast.  All  Mexico  and  Central  Amer 
ica,  all  the  western  parts  of  South  America  and 
of  Canada,  are  as  near  to  us  as  is  Honolulu;  and 
comparison  of  the  little  Sandwich  Islands  in  popu 
lation  with  any  of  them  would  be  ridiculous.  Yet 
none  of  them  bought  as  much  salmon  in  San  Fran 
cisco  as  Hawaii,  and  no  countries  bought  more 
save  England  and  Australia.  No  countries  bought 
as  much  barley,  excepting  Central  America;  and 
even  in  the  staff  of  life,  the  California  flour,  which 
all  the  world  buys,  only  five  countries  outranked 
Hawaii  in  purchases  in  San  Francisco. 

No  doubt  a  part  of  this  result  is  due  to  the  near 
ness  of  Hawaii  to  our  markets,  and  her  distance 
from  any  others  capable  of  competing  with  us,  and 
another  part  to  a  favorable  system  of  reciprocity. 
Nevertheless,  nobody  doubts  the  advantage  our 
dealers  have  derived  in  the  promotion  of  trade 
from  controlling  political  relations  and  frequent 
intercourse.  There  are  those  who  deny  that "  trade 
follows  the  flag/'  but  even  they  admit  that  it 
leaves  if  the  flag  does.  And,  independent  of  these 
advantages,  and  reckoning  by  mere  distance,  we 
still  have  the  better  of  any  European  rivals  in  the 

194 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

Philippines.  Now,  assume  that  the  Filipino  would 
have  far  fewer  wants  than  the  Kanaka  or  his  coolie 
laborer,  and  would  do  far  less  work  for  the  means 
to  gratify  them.  Admit,  too,  that,  with  the  Open 
Door,  our  political  relations  and  frequent  inter 
course  could  have  barely  a  fifth  or  a  sixth  of  the 
effect  there  they  have  had  in  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
Roughly  cast  up  even  that  result,  and  say  whether 
it  is  a  value  which  the  United  States  should  throw 
away  as  not  worth  considering ! 

And  the  greatest  remains  behind.  For  the  trade 
in  the  Philippines  will  be  but  a  drop  in  the  bucket 
compared  to  that  of  China,  for  which  they  give  us 
an  unapproachable  foothold.  But  let  it  never  be  for 
gotten  that  the  confidence  of  Orientals  goes  only 
to  those  whom  they  recognize  as  strong  enough 
and  determined  enough  always  to  hold  their  own 
and  protect  their  rights !  The  worst  possible  intro 
duction  for  the  Asiatic  trade  would  be  an  irresolute 
abandonment  of  our  foothold  because  it  was  too 
much  trouble  to  keep,  or  because  some  Malay  and 
half-breed  insurgents  said  they  wanted  us  away. 

Have  you  considered  for  whom  we  hold  these 
advantages  in  trust?  They  belong  not  merely  to 
the  seventy-five  millions  now  within  our  borders, 
but  to  all  who  are  to  extend  the  fortunes  and  pre 
serve  the  virtues  of  the  Republic  in  the  coming 
century.  Their  numbers  cannot  increase  in  the 
startling  ratio  this  century  has  shown.  If  they  did, 
the  population  of  the  United  States  a  hundred 
years  hence  would  be  over  twelve  hundred  mil- 

C    195   3 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

lions.  That  ratio  is  impossible,  but  nobody  gives 
reasons  why  we  should  not  increase  half  as  fast. 
Suppose  we  do  actually  increase  only  one-fourth  as 
fast  in  the  twentieth  century  as  in  the  nineteenth. 
To  what  height  would  not  the  three  hundred 
millions  of  Americans  whom  even  that  ratio  fore 
tells  bear  up  the  seething  industrial  activities  of 
the  continent !  To  what  corner  of  the  world  would 
they  not  need  to  carry  their  commerce?  What 
demands  on  tropical  productions  would  they  not 
make?  What  outlets  for  their  adventurous  youth 
would  they  not  require  ?  With  such  a  prospect  be 
fore  us,  who  thinks  that  we  should  shrink  from  an 
enlargement  of  our  national  sphere  because  of  the 
limitations  that  bound,  or  the  dangers  that  threat 
ened,  before  railroads,  before  ocean  steamers,  be 
fore  telegraphs  and  ocean  cables,  before  the  enor 
mous  development  of  our  manufactures,  and  the 
training  of  executive  and  organizing  faculties  in 
our  people  on  a  constantly  increasing  scale  for 
generations  ? 

Does  the  prospect  alarm  ?  Is  it  said  that  our  na 
tion  is  already  too  great,  that  all  its  magnificent 
growth  only  adds  to  the  conflicting  interests  that 
must  eventually  tear  it  asunder?  What  cement, 
then,  like  that  of  a  great  common  interest  be 
yond  our  borders,  that  touches  not  merely  the 
conscience,  but  the  pocket  and  the  pride  of  all 
alike,  and  marshals  us  in  the  face  of  the  world, 
standing  for  our  own  ? 

What,  then,  is   the   conclusion  of  the  whole 

c  196 


OUR  DUTY  IN  THE  PHILIPPINES 

matter  ?  Hold  fast !  Stand  firm  in  the  place  where 
Providence  has  put  you,  and  do  the  duty  as  just 
responsibility  for  your  own  past  acts  imposes.  Sup 
port  the  army  you  sent  there.  Stop  wasting  valu 
able  strength  by  showing  how  things  might  be 
different  if  something  different  had  been  done  at 
the  outset.  Use  the  educated  thought  of  the  coun 
try  for  shaping  best  its  course  now,  instead  of 
chiefly  finding  fault  with  its  history.  Bring  the  best 
hope  of  the  future,  the  colleges  and  the  genera 
tion  they  are  training,  to  exert  the  greatest  influ 
ence  and  accomplish  the  most  good  by  working  in 
telligently  in  line  with  the  patriotic  aspirations  and 
the  inevitable  tendencies  of  the  American  people, 
rather  than  against  them.  Unite  the  efforts  of  all 
men  of  goodwill  to  make  the  appointment  of  any 
person  to  these  new  and  strange  duties  beyond  seas 
impossible  save  for  proved  fitness,  and  his  removal 
impossible  save  for  cause.  Rally  the  colleges  and 
the  churches,  and  all  they  influence,  the  brain  and 
the  conscience  of  the  country,  in  a  combined  and 
irresistible  demand  for  a  genuine,  trained,  and  pure 
Civil  Service  in  our  new  possessions,  that  shall  put 
to  shame  our  detractors,  and  show  to  the  world 
the  Americans  of  this  generation,  equal  still  to  the 
work  of  civilization  and  colonization,  and  leading 
the  development  of  the  coming  century  as  bravely 
as  their  fathers  led  it  in  the  past. 


c:  197 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 
ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 
ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

ETus  begin  by  stating  the  elements  of  the  prob 
lem. 

First,  then,  a  new  and  vast  country,  develop 
ing  at  the  outset  with  painful  slowness,  later  with 
startling  rapidity,  under  a  self-governing  people. 

Next,  important  characteristics  among  this 
people  derived  from  the  land  which  first  ruled 
them  —  a  vehement  attachment  to  their  personal 
rights — and  a  belief,  which  never  admits  a  ques 
tion,  in  the  imperative  duty  of  giving  the  best 
possible  education  to  their  children. 

Next,  a  growing  tendency  toward  universal  suf 
frage,  creating  a  political  necessity  for  the  nearest 
practicable  approach  to  universal  intelligence. 

Next,  a  habit  of  thought,  fervidly  religious  at  the 
outset, but  diverging  into  many  forms  of  religion; 
strenuous,  therefore,  at  once  in  a  demand  for  re 
ligious  freedom  and  in  hostility  to  an  established 
church. 

And  finally,  a  continent  to  be  conquered  from  its 
primitive  wildness  and  savagery  to  the  uses  of  civ 
ilized  man,  a  task  sometimes  shortening  the  years 
parents  could  spare  their  children  for  education, 
and  impressing  on  what  education  they  did  get  a 
new  and  very  practical  bent,  in  order  to  promote 
these  material  conquests  through  scientific  means. 
We  hear  occasionally  about  the  Science  of  His 
tory — more,  in  fact,  at  times  than  some  of  us  be- 

[    201     ] 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

lieve.  But,  given  these  elements  of  the  problem, 
we  may  well  imagine  that  the  philosophic  student 
might  on  such  data  almost  construct  the  history 
of  educational  evolution  in  the  United  States  from 
first  principles  and  without  reference  to  the  rec 
ords.  Thus: 

It  would  be  clear  that  at  the  outset  every  reli 
gious  sect  would  start  private  schools,  and  would 
try  to  sweep  into  them  not  only  the  children  of  its 
own  faith,  but  all  others  it  could  lay  its  hand  on. 

It  would  be  equally  clear  that  wherever  it  could, 
it  would  load  the  support  of  these  schools  on  the 
whole  tax-paying  community.  There  would  thus 
arise  public  schools  ( by  which  an  American  always 
means  tax-supported  schools),  giving  sectarian 
instruction. 

But  when  different  sects, nearly  or  quite  balanc 
ing  each  other  in  influence,  disputed  the  control 
in  a  new  and  unconventional  community,  where 
there  were  no  roads  through  these  novel  perplex 
ities  any  more  than  through  their  forests,  and 
where  they  had  to  blaze  their  trails  for  themselves, 
it  is  clear  that  this  sectarian  instruction  would  in 
the  end  be  so  modified  as  to  include  only  tenets 
common  to  all,  and  would  tend  in  fact  to  become 
less  doctrinal  andmore  ethical — a  teaching  merely 
of  morals  and  of  duties  to  each  other. 

In  course  of  time  many  of  the  churches  would 
be  dissatisfied  with  this  and  would  revert  to  pri 
vate  schools  at  their  own  cost  and  under  their  own 
exclusive  control.  The  burden  of  supporting  these 

C  202  3 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

would  be  so  considerable  that  they  would  object  to 
being  taxed  also  for  the  support  of  public  schools 
for  other  people's  children. 

But  in  a  country  controlled  by  popular  suffrage 
and  among  a  people  passionately  convinced  that 
the  success  of  their  government  depended  on  the 
widest  diffusion  of  intelligence,  it  is  evident  that 
a  system  of  free  public  schools  supported  by  public 
taxation,  when  once  started,  could  never  be  aban 
doned.  It  would  be  thought  a  necessary  measure 
of  self-defence  in  the  government  to  educate  all 
the  rising  generation  for  the  duties  of  citizenship, 
the  poorest  of  them  as  well  as  the  richest,  and  the 
pagan  no  less  than  the  Puritan. The  public  school 
system,  free  to  all  and  supported  by  public  taxa 
tion,  would  inevitably  become,  therefore,  a  fixed 
feature  of  public  policy. 

Now,  with  the  two  systems  in  force,  it  would  be 
obvious  that  the  one  where  tuition  was  free  would 
grow  the  faster  ;  and  equally  obvious  that  those 
who  paid  for  their  own  and  were  taxed  for  the 
other  would  wish  to  limit  as  far  as  possible  the  scope 
and  consequently  the  cost  of  the  one  they  didn't 
use. Two  rival  theories  as  to  taxing  everybody  for 
the  education  of  the  rising  generation  would  thus 
develop:  one,  that  such  taxation  was  necessary 
and  justifiable  only  far  enough  to  fit  them  for  the 
common  duties  of  citizenship ;  and  the  other  that  it 
was  also  to  the  public  interest  to  fit  them  for  any 
thing.  Heavy  taxpayers  would  naturally  lead  in  the 
first;  those  who  felt  less  the  burden  of  taxation,  or 

C   203  ] 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

paid  no  taxes,  in  the  second.  As  heavy  taxpayers 
are  never  in  the  majority,  and  as  the  readiness  to 
vote  burdens  on  others  is  apt  to  be  more  marked 
in  those  who  do  not  bear  like  burdens  themselves, 
it  would  be  natural  to  expect  the  tendency  in  the 
long  run,  in  a  democratic  government,  to  be  found 
in  favor  of  the  most  liberal  appropriations  and  the 
widest  scope  for  the  studies. 

The  first  class  would  hold  that  only  reading, 
writing,  and  arithmetic  were  necessary,  with  per 
haps  the  history  of  the  country  and  the  nature 
of  its  government.  To  tax  them  for  teaching  other 
people's  children  more  than  that,  Latin  or  algebra 
or  chemistry,  they  would  regard  as  robbery.  But 
the  second  class,  those  depending  on  the  free  pub 
lic  schools  rather  than  on  the  sectarian  schools  for 
the  education  of  their  children,  would  wish  it  car 
ried  as  far  as  the  children  seemed  capable  of  re 
ceiving  and  profiting  by  it.  They  would  easily  per 
suade  themselves,  too,  of  the  sound  public  policy 
and  justice  of  this,  since  they  would  argue  that  the 
more  the  child  knew  and  the  more  its  judgment 
was  developed,  the  better  and  more  useful  mem 
ber  of  a  self-governing  community  it  would  make. 

Thus  could  be  easily  foreseen  a  struggle  be 
tween  those  who  wished  to  limit  the  free  public 
school  system  to  primary  education  and  those  who 
wished  to  carry  it  through  secondary  schools  to 
colleges  and  universities.  The  one  side  would  hold 
that  the  free  secondary  and  university  education, 
besides  harming  the  taxpayer  through  unequal 

[   204  ] 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

burdens,  would  harm  many  of  those  encouraged  to 
take  it  for  the  reason  that  it  cost  nothing ;  since  it 
would  educate  them  beyond  their  intellect  and  dis 
qualify  them  for  what  they  are  fit  for,  in  the  effort 
to  qualify  them  for  tasks  they  never  can  be  made 
fit  for — spoiling  good  farmers  or  blacksmiths  to 
make  worthless  lawyers  or  doctors  or  speculators. 
The  other  side  would  hold  that  the  more  educa 
tion  one  is  found  capable  of  receiving,  the  better 
fitted  he  will  be  to  do  whatever  he  finds  to  do — 
that  the  better  education  you  give  him,  the  better 
farmer  or  blacksmith  he  will  make,  if  that  is  to  be 
his  vocation. 

Finally,  our  philosophic  student  would  infer  that 
in  the  long  run,  in  a  country  without  an  established 
church  or  a  governing  class,  constantly  tending 
toward  universal  suffrage  and  toward  the  changes 
wrought  by  enormous  and  highly  varied  immigra 
tion,  the  side  likely  to  prevail  would  be  the  one 
making  all  education,  from  the  lowest  rung  at  the 
foot  of  the  educational  ladder  to  the  very  highest, 
open  to  the  poorest  child  on  the  sole  condition  of 
capacity  to  receive  it.  He  would  further  infer  that 
of  those  who  set  their  foot  on  this  ladder  many 
would  be  intensely  eager  to  get  off  it  again  to 
begin  making  a  living,  and  eager  while  on  it  for  a 
great  variety  of  special  studies  that  they  thought 
would  help  them  in  the  varied  pursuits  they  ex 
pected  to  follow. 

It  may  be  briefly  said  that  something  like  this  is 
the  exact  history  of  two  centuries  of  educational 

205 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

evolution  in  the  United  States.  It  seems  to  be  end 
ing  in  a  system,  ranging  from  the  alphabet  to  the 
classics,  the  modern  languages,  literature,  history, 
civics,  the  higher  mathematics,  and  science,  with  a 
strong  leaning  to  practical  applications  of  science 
in  all  fields  of  art  and  industry,  sustained  abso 
lutely  at  the  public  expense  and  free  to  all,  with 
every  grade  open  to  the  poorest  and  most  friend 
less  pupil  in  the  grade  below,  on  the  single  re 
quirement  that  his  standing  there  fits  him  for  it. 
That  is  all  that  is  necessary  to-day  in  the  greatest 
city  of  the  New  World  to  carry  the  child  of  the 
Ghetto  or  of  the  Levantine  push-cart  quarter  from 
the  primer  to  a  fairly  earned  degree  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  in  the  College  of  the  City  of  New  York , 
or  to  an  equivalent  degree,  involving  equal  study 
and  to  a  considerable  extent  along  equally  varied 
lines,  in  its  Normal  College  for  Women. 

This  system  had  grown  in  the  early  years  of 
the  present  century  into  a  total  enrolment  in  the 
schools,  colleges,  and  universities  of  the  United 
States,  public  and  private,  of  1 7,539,ooo  pupils,  of 
whom  16,127,000  were  in  public  institutions  sup 
ported  by  taxation.  When  the  enrolments  for  certain 
special  interests,  evening  schools,  reform  schools, 
Indian  schools,  schools  for  deaf,  blind,  feeble 
minded,  etc.,  were  added,  the  grand  total  was 
reached  of  18,187,000.  Nearly  one-fourth  of  the 
total  population  is  at  school  in  a  nation  of  eighty 
millions!1 

1  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  Refiort,  December  1,  1904. 

C  206  ] 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

The  system  thus  developed,  though  varying  some 
what  in  the  different  states,  is  characterized  by 
certain  general  peculiarities. 

First,  as  to  religion  in  the  schools.  Broadly  speak 
ing,  religious  instruction  is  not  compulsory  in  any 
public  schools  and  not  permitted  in  the  most.  Re 
ligious  exercises  at  the  daily  opening  of  the  school 
were  long  encouraged,  and  are  still  common,  but 
seem  to  be  growing  less  frequent,  especially  in  the 
great  cities.  The  language  of  the  New  York  City 
charter  probably  states,  though  in  a  somewhat  in 
volved  fashion,  the  ground  which  most  city  schools 
throughout  the  Union  and  many  of  those  in  the 
country  are  fast  approaching : 

' '  No  school  shall  be  entitled  to  or  receive  any  portion 
of  the  school  moneys  in  which  the  religious  doctrines  or 
tenets  of  any  particular  Christian  or  other  religious  sect 
shall  be  taught,  inculcated,  or  practised,  or  in  which  any 
book  or  books  containing  compositions  favourable  or  pre 
judicial  to  the  particular  doctrine  or  tenets  of  any  par^ 
ticular  Christian  or  other  religious  sect  shall  be  used,  or 
which  shall  teach  the  doctrines  or  tenets  of  any  other  re 
ligious  sect,  or  which  shall  refuse  to  permit  the  visits  and 
examinations  provided  for  in  this  chapter.  But  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  authorize  the  board  of  education 
or  the  school  board  of  any  borough  to  exclude  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  without  note  or  comment,  or  any  selections 
therefrom,  from  any  of  the  schools  provided  for  by  this 
chapter ;  but  it  shall  not  be  competent  for  the  said  board 
of  education  to  decide  what  version,  if  any,  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  without  note  or  comment,  shall  be  used  in 
any  of  the  schools;  provided  that  nothing  herein  con- 

C  207  ] 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

tained  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  violate  the  rights  of 
conscience,  as  secured  by  the  constitution  of  this  state 
and  of  the  United  States." 

Under  this,  the  reading  of  a  chapter  of  the  Bible  at 
the  opening  of  the  school  is  still  common. 

The  New  York  state  constitution  prohibits  aid 
from  public  funds  to  denominational  schools,  or  to 
schools  where  any  denominational  tenet  or  doc 
trine  is  taught;  and  similar  prohibitions  are  general 
in  other  states.  The  New  York  provision  reads  as 
follows: 

1 '  Neither  the  state,  nor  any  subdivision  thereof,  shall  use 
its  property  or  credit  or  any  public  money,  or  authorize 
or  permit  either  to  be  used  directly  or  indirectly,  in  aid 
or  maintenance,  other  than  for  examination  or  inspection, 
of  any  school  or  institution  of  learning  wholly  or  in  part 
under  the  control  or  direction  of  any  religious  denomi 
nation,  or  in  which  any  denominational  tenet  or  doctrine 
is  taught." 

To  discuss  the  effects  of  this  general  policy  might 
approach  too  closely  to  contentious  domestic  ques 
tions.  One  may  be  permitted,  however,  to  say  that 
in  the  prevalent  American  view  it  certainly  throws 
a  greater  work  upon  the  family  and  the  church; 
but  that,  where  these  both  do  their  full  duty,  it  is 
probable  that  no  harm  results. 

As  to  the  extent  of  the  public  school  education.  The 
doctrine  is  rapidly  gaining  ground  in  most  of  the 
states  that  it  should  be  carried  at  the  public  ex 
pense  from  the  primary  branches  straight  through 
the  secondary  schools  and  on  to  the  universities, 

C  2 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

for  all  who  are  found  capable,  able,  and  desirous 
to  continue  such  a  course.  In  more  than  half  the 
states  free  universities  are  already  to  be  found. 

As  to  its  character.  "I  would  found  an  institu 
tion,"  said  Ezra  Cornell, "  where  any  person  can 
find  instruction  in  any  study."  The  sentiment  has 
been  inscribed  on  the  walls  of  the  Capitol  in  his  na 
tive  state  at  Albany,  and  it  is  beginning  to  expand 
the  available  courses  of  study,  not  only  in  the 
colleges  and  universities,  but  largely  also  in  the 
secondary  schools,  and  sometimes  even  in  the  pri 
maries.  A  reaction  against  the  excessive  extension 
of  this  elective  system  is  setting  in ;  and  there  is  a 
good  deal  of  complaint,  especially  in  the  primary 
schools,  where  it  is  often  said  the  attention  of 
the  children  is  distracted  to  so  many  other  things 
that  they  do  not  learn  reading,  writing,  and  arith 
metic  as  well  as  they  should.  But  in  the  secondary 
schools  and  the  universities  there  is  an  enormous 
multiplication  of  studies  and  of  separate  courses  of 
study,  designed  forthe  varying  wants  of  the  pupils, 
with  reference  to  the  varied  vocations  they  expect 
to  enter.  The  tendency  is  strongly  to  the  practical 
side,  and  scientific  and  technological  studies  are 
greatly  in  favor. 

As  to  the  time  taken  for  public  education.  This 
tendency  to  specialize  at  school  with  reference  to 
what  the  pupil  expects  to  do  to  earn  a  living  is  ac 
companied  with  another  peculiarity — a  haste,  once 
almost  a  craze,  to  get  out  of  school  and  get  to  work 
at  one's  life-business  at  the  earliest  practicable  mo 
il 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

ment.  Nowhere  else  has  there  been  the  like  fever 
ish  anxiety  to  keep  the  studies  of  the  secondary 
schools  or  of  the  universities  within  such  a  range 
that  the  pupil  may  think  he  has  received  a  lib 
eral  education,  but  get  through  it  in  fewer  years 
than  formerly.  He  even  tries  now  to  complete  the 
usual  college  course  in  three  years,  instead  of  the 
traditional  four;  and  would  like  the  course  in  the 
professional  school  for  a  doctor  or  lawyer  to  be 
two  years  instead  of  three  or  more.  In  fact,  he 
often  begrudges  every  month  between  the  primary 
school  and  the  entry  on  his  business  or  profession, 
and  fears  that  those  taking  still  less  time  than  him 
self  for  liberal  studies  will  get  ahead  of  him  in  the 
race  of  life. 

As  to  women.  In  all  the  public  schools,  primary 
and  secondary,  there  are  apt  to  be  as  many  girls 
as  boys.  In  the  colleges  and  universities  the  pro 
portion  may  be  smaller,  but  in  those  supported  by 
public  taxation  both  sexes  are  admitted  on  equal 
terms,  as  well  as  in  many  others.  It  begins  to  be 
considered,  however,  that  coeducation  is  chiefly 
commended  by  its  economy.  A  state  university  can, 
of  course,  educate  such  girls  as  seek  its  classes 
at  less  cost  to  the  taxpayers  than  if  a  separate 
institution  had  to  be  built  up  for  them  and  a  sec 
ond  set  of  professors  engaged.  But  aside  from  this, 
it  is  coming  to  be  thought  in  many  quarters  that 
better  results  may  be  had  in  separate  institutions. 
Thus  one  of  the  richest  and  most  independent  of 
the  new  universities,  that  of  Chicago,  endowed 

C 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

by  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  came  to  adopt  the 
segregation  of  female  students,  and  another,  the 
Stanford  University  of  California,  is  limiting  the 
female  students  to  one-third  or  less  of  the  entire 
number.  There  are,  however,  many  well-endowed 
and  admirably  equipped  colleges  for  women  alone, 
sometimes  independent,  sometimes  affiliated  with 
a  great  university  like  Harvard  or  Columbia ;  and 
the  number  of  women  pursuing  their  education 
through  colleges  and  universities  is  already  large 
and  rapidly  increasing. 

A  final  peculiarity  of  the  American  system  may 
be  noted :  the  extraordinary  readiness  of  rich  men 
to  found  colleges  and  universities;  to  endow  chairs 
in  them,  or  make  to  them  gifts  of  libraries  or 
museums,  or  to  help  on  the  lower  schools  in  a 
multitude  of  ways.  Two  American  citizens,  both 
noted  for  other  benefactions,  have  given  forty  mil 
lions  of  dollars  to  four  educational  enterprises 
alone — Andrew  Carnegie  to  the  Carnegie  Insti 
tution  for  Original  Research  and  to  a  fund  for 
pensioning  college  professors;  John  D.  Rockefel 
ler  to  the  Chicago  University  and  to  the  General 
Education  Board.  Another,  Leland  Stanford,  gave 
what  promises,  when  the  estate  is  fully  settled,  to 
amount  to  from  thirty-five  to  forty  millions  for  the 
university  founded  in  memory  of  his  lost  son.  Ezra 
Cornell  founded,  financed,  gave  to,  and  solicited 
for  the  university  in  western  New  York  which 
bears  his  name  till  it  now  has  property  and  endow 
ment  amounting  to  about  twelve  millions  or  more. 

C  211  ] 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

Matthew  Vassar,  a  brewer,  founded  the  first  col 
lege  for  women  in  America,  at  Poughkeepsie,New 
York,  and  gave  and  secured  for  it  two  millions  and 
a  half.  To  call  the  long  roll  of  similar  benefactions 
would  exhaust  both  time  and  patience.  In  ten  years 
the  gifts  to  universities,  colleges,  and  schools  of 
technology  in  the  United  States  amounted  to  a  hun 
dred  and  fifteen  millions  of  dollars.  The  tide  was 
steadily  rising,  for  in  the  last  of  those  years,  1902, 
the  gifts  to  such  institutions  amounted  to  sixteen 
and  three-quarter  millions. 

The  basis  of  this  whole  system  is,  of  course, 
the  common  primary  or  elementary  school.  The 
enrolment  in  the  primary  schools  in  the  different 
states  generally  equals  about  twenty  per  cent  of 
the  population,  and  the  average  daily  attendance 
about  sixty-nine  per  cent  of  the  enrolment.  The 
average  length  of  the  school  term  throughout  the 
country  is  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  days; 
the  annual  cost,  roughly  speaking,  is  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars.  The  general 
tendency  is  to  make  attendance  compulsory  be 
tween  the  ages  of  six  and  fourteen,  and  to  apply 
the  penalties  for  non-attendance  to  the  parent. 
The  home  rule  disposition  of  a  democracy  leaves 
the  business  management  of  the  school  to  the 
people  of  the  locality,  but  the  state  alone  passes 
upon  the  fitness  of  the  teacher. 

In  the  state  with  whose  educational  system  I 
have  the  greatest  familiarity,  that  of  New  York, 
the  average  of  daily  attendance  rises  to  seventy- 

[    212    ] 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

six  per  cent  of  the  enrolment ;  and  the  compulsory 
education  law  is  supplemented  and  made  far  more 
effective  among  the  mixed  population  of  our  great 
cities  by  rigid  laws  against  child  labor.  Whether 
parents  wish  it  or  not,  it  is  thus  made  difficult  for 
the  children  to  lose  their  American  birthright  to 
a  sound  elementary  education. 

A  more  distinctive  feature  of  the  American  system 
is  the  secondary  school.  In  countries  where  free 
tuition  is  not  carried  up  to  the  university,  there  is 
apt  to  be  a  vague,  undeveloped  territory  between 
the  primary  schools  and  the  universities,  filled 
sometimes  and  to  a  certain  extent  by  tax-supported 
high  schools,  but  more  frequently  by  private  high 
schools.  The  distinguishing  feature  of  the  free 
common  school  system  of  the  United  States  is  the 
completeness  with  which  it  fills  this  gap  between 
the  primary  schools  and  the  colleges  or  universi 
ties.  This  began  almost  with  the  beginning  of  the 
colonies.  In  1647  Massachusetts  required  by  law 
the  establishment  of  a  primary  school  wherever 
there  were  fifty  families  in  a  settlement  or  town 
ship  ;  and  a  grammar  school  which  should  be  capa 
ble  of  fitting  students  for  college  wherever  there 
were  a  hundred.  Connecticut  and  Maryland  re 
quired  a  grammar  school  in  every  county  town. 
Other  colonies  in  one  way  or  another  made  pro 
vision  for  secondary  education  at  the  public  ex 
pense.  But  as  the  troubles  preceding  the  Revolu 
tionary  War  increased,  these  grammar  schools  or 

C   213   H 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

high  schools  fell  into  some  neglect  and  many  com 
munities  were  without  them.  Then  sprang  up  a 
system  of  private  academies,  often  under  sectarian 
control,  and  sometimes  receiving  subventions  from 
the  public  treasury,  though  never  under  public  con 
trol.  The  two  long  continued  to  occupy  the  field 
together.  The  differences  between  them  have  been 
incisively  stated  by  the  accomplished  Commis 
sioner  of  Education  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
Dr.  Andrew  S.  Draper: 

4  The  function  of  the  academy  was  to  prepare  for  col 
lege  and  incidentally  for  life ;  that  of  the  high  school  is  to 
prepare  for  life  and  incidentally  for  college.  The  one  was 
classical,  with  some  practicalities;  the  other  is  severely 
practical  and  generally  in  the  best  sense,  with  classical 
appurtenances.  The  academy  was  essentially  an  advanced 
school  for  boys ;  the  high  school  is  as  essentially  co 
educational." 

Meantime  the  various  states  were  slowly  feeling 
their  way  toward  more  harmonious  and  better  ar 
ticulated  systems  of  education  entirely  under  pub 
lic  control  and  at  the  public  expense.  New  York 
was  the  first.  Its  organization  of  secondary  schools 
in  1 784  was  intended  to  fit  into  the  primary  edu 
cation  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  lead,  on  the  other, 
to  colleges  and  universities.  Indiana  outlined  such 
a  system  in  1816,  Pennsylvania  began  state  sup 
port  of  secondary  and  higher  education  in  1838, 
and  many  large  towns  in  other  states  did  the  same. 
But  the  system  was  still  disjointed  and  irregular. 

C 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

At  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  a  new  educational 
movement  began  to  be  increasingly  felt  through 
out  the  United  States.  Amid  all  the  vivid  pictures 
left  on  my  mind  by  what  I  saw  during  that  gigan 
tic  convulsion,  none,  even  of  Gettysburg  or  Shiloh, 
bring  back  such  a  thrill  as  these  of  Washington 
in  1862: 

First,  a  calm ,  sunshiny  day  when  the  great  bronze 
Statue  of  Liberty  was  hoisted  to  the  dome  of  the 
still  unfinished  Capitol  and  slowly  settled  to  its 
place  above  that  exquisite  structure,  almost  within 
eyesight  of  Confederate  troops  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Potomac.  Not  even  the  Conscript  Fathers, 
advancing  the  price  of  public  land  across  the  Tiber 
on  which  the  armies  besieging  Rome  were  then 
encamped,  were  finer  than  that. 

The  others  came  under  my  eye  as  a  young  offi 
cial  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  When  the 
fitful  flame  of  the  nation's  life  seemed  flickering 
with  every  fresh  bulletin  from  the  field,  Congress 
calmly  considered  and  passed  three  bills.  One  gave 
free  a  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  to  any  citi 
zen  on  the  sole  condition  that  he  should  occupy 
and  develop  it.  Another  reached  across  mountains 
and  deserts  to  bind  together  in  an  indissoluble 
union  the  East  and  the  farthest  West  by  the  Pacific 
Railroad.  The  third  and  the  greatest — signed,  as 
Dr.  Draper  reminds  us,  by  Abraham  Lincoln  with 
the  same  penful  of  ink  with  which  he  had  just 
signed  the  second  call  for  three  hundred  thousand 
soldiers — gave  of  the  public  lands  to  every  state 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

as  much  as  was  needed  to  found  a  free  university 
for  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  state. 

From  that  inspiring  act  came  the  two  great  im 
pulses  that  have  almost  transformed  American 
education  in  the  last  forty  years :  the  vast  expan 
sion  of  the  secondary  schools  and  the  development 
of  the  state  universities.  Between  them,  when  the 
system  is  complete,  they  put  within  reach  of  any 
child  of  the  Republic  a  free  university  education. 

We  are  not  deluded  with  the  conceit  that  our 
secondary  school  system  is  yet  the  best  possible 
means  for  fitting  children  either  for  college  or  for 
life.  What  we  may  say  is  that  it  is  the  best  means 
yet  devised  and  put  into  operation  for  placing 
within  reach  of  the  greatest  number  of  children 
the  opportunity  to  climb  the  educational  ladder  as 
high  as  they  can;  and  that  the  education  thus 
afforded  tends  in  the  main  to  develop,  even  out  of 
the  masses  of  imported  raw  material,  the  kind 
of  citizens  who  have  thus  far  made  the  fortunes 
of  the  country. 

Statistics  of  attendance  in  these  schools  are 
scarcely  available  in  any  satisfactory  form  before 
1876.  In  that  year  there  were  in  the  public  high 
schools  of  the  country  only  about  23,000  pupils, 
and  in  the  corresponding  private  schools  about 
74,000.  By  1902  the  proportions  were  remarkably 
reversed.  There  were  then  in  the  6292  public  high 
schools  551,000  pupils,  and  in  the  private  schools 
105,000 ;  or,  roughly  speaking,  about  one  in  every 

C  2l6  3 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

twenty-three  of  the  youth  of  the  land  was  pur 
suing  some  form  of  higher  education,  while  the 
door  was  open  to  as  many  of  the  others  as  showed 
themselves  qualified  to  enter  it. 

The  nature  of  the  instruction  varies  in  differ 
ent  localities.  In  a  general  way  it  may  be  said  that 
the  standard  curriculum  toward  which  educational 
authorities  are  striving  would  include  either  mod 
ern  or  ancient  languages,  mathematics,  English, 
and  science  for  about  one-half  the  work  of  a  four 
years'  course,  while  the  rest  would  be  made  up  of 
studies  chosen  by  the  pupil  or  the  parents. 

Perhaps  a  better  idea  may  be  given  by  taking 
first  the  requirements  of  a  good  secondary  school, 
and  next  the  bewildering  array  of  "  electives  "  it 
is  apt  to  allow.  For  this  purpose  the  high  school  of 
St.  Louis  may  be  selected.  All  its  pupils  who  com 
plete  its  four  years'  course  have  been  required  to 
study  English,  algebra,  plane  geometry,  physics, 
biology,  history,  and  Shakespeare,  and  to  these 
they  must  give  somewhat  more  than  half  their 
time.  Then,  under  the  guidance  of  the  authorities, 
studies  sufficient  for  the  rest  of  the  time  must  be 
made  up  out  of  a  long  list,  including  ethics,  civics, 
economics,  psychology,  arithmetic,  bookkeeping, 
commercial  law,  higher  algebra,  solid  geometry, 
trigonometry,  chemistry,  penmanship,  phonogra 
phy,  drawing  and  history  of  art,  Latin,  German, 
French,  Spanish,  and  Greek. 

A  more  conservative  and,  as  I  must  think,  a  wiser 
class  of  schools  leaves  less  to  the  choice  of  the  pupils 

C   217  n 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

or  parents,  but  allows  an  election  between  scien 
tific  and  classical  courses.  In  the  first  they  have 
Latin  and  either  German  or  French,  with  alge 
bra,  history,  English,  geometry,  trigonometry, 
botany,  and  chemistry.  In  the  classical  course  they 
generally  carry  Latin  and  English  through  the 
four  years,  Greek  through  three,  and  German 
and  French  through  two,  with  algebra,  geometry, 
and  history.  Still  others  ( as  ordered  by  the  State  of 
Minnesota,  for  example )  arrange  most  of  the  stud 
ies  already  named  into  three  courses,  called  re 
spectively  English,  Literary,  and  Classical,  and  be 
tween  these  the  pupils  or  their  parents  make  choice. 
Where  students  were  preparing  for  college,  it  was 
found  in  1 902  that  a  little  over  one-half  took  a  clas 
sical,  a  little  less  than  one-half  a  scientific  course.  A 
more  definite  idea  as  to  the  present  bent  of  second 
ary  school  education  may  be  given  by  the  facts 
that  in  1898, out  of  over  a  million  students,  306,000 
studied  algebra,  274,000  Latin,  147,000  geom 
etry,  113,000  physics,  78,000  German,  58,000 
French,47,ooo  chemistry,  and  only  25,000  Greek. 
The  general  tendency  was  summed  up  in  the 
pregnant  statement  by  Elmer  Ellsworth  Brown, 
then  Professor  of  Education  in  the  University  of 
California,  afterward  United  States  Commissioner 
of  Education,  that  in  consideration  of  secondary 
school  curricula,  it  is  now  coming  to  be  thought 
that"  what  is  good  preparation  for  life  is  good  prep 
aration  for  college.  More  and  more  the  question  of 
college  entrance  requirements  is  coming  to  be  a 

I   218   ] 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

question  as  to  what  is  best  for  the  schools ;  and  a 
situation  in  which  certain  demands  of  the  colleges 
were  once  the  determining  factor,  now  finds  its 
determining  factor  in  the  demands  of  the  public 
high  school. "To  this  I  may  add  that  in  1902  the 
pupils  entering  college  from  the  tax-supported  high 
schools  stood,  as  to  those  entering  from  academies 
or  private  schools,  in  the  proportion  of  2 ]/$  to  i. 
They  comprised  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  million 
boys  and  nearly  a  third  of  a  million  girls. 

Naturally,  then,  the  secondary  schools  are  striv 
ing  to  make  the  education  they  give  stand  on  its 
own  merits,  and  to  avoid  having  it  narrowed  into 
a  process  of  cramming  for  college  examinations. 
Help  is  given  to  this  effort  by  some  of  the  colleges 
themselves,  which  do  away  with  entrance  exam 
inations  altogether,  in  the  case  of  pupils  from  cer 
tain  schools  whose  certificates  of  fitness  for  entry 
they  accept.  This  means  that  it  is  the  school  that  is 
examined,  its  methods, fitness,  and  thoroughness; 
and  that  it  is  the  daily  work  of  the  pupil  that  counts, 
not  the  accidental  performance  on  a  few  points  on 
a  single  day  of  apprehension  and  nervous  strain. 
The  school  is  thus  sustained  in  trying  to  give  its 
pupils  a  rounded  mastery  of  their  subjects  and 
to  rate  their  work  by  both  its  average  quality  and 
its  quantity.  The  pupil  is  stimulated  to  learn  his 
subject  for  its  own  sake,  not  to  think  only  of  what 
he  must  know  to  "  pass  "  on  the  questions  of  some 
particular  college. 

Methods  of  instruction,  too,  are  changing. There 

C   219  H 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

is  an  abandonment  of  mere  learning  by  rote  and  of 
old  routine ;  a  greater  tendency  to  throw  the  stu 
dent  on  his  own  resources  and  make  him  think  for 
himself;  a  vast  extension  of  practical  illustrations, 
and  particularly  of  laboratory  work,  in  physics, 
chemistry,  and  the  biological  sciences.  Text-books 
often  come  then  to  be  used  chiefly  to  formulate 
and  explain  what  the  pupil  has  already  found  out. 

The  Massachusetts  system  still  keeps  the  inspi 
ration  of  its  great  educator,  Horace  Mann,  and 
leads  the  country  in  carrying  free  secondary  educa 
tion  into  the  remotest  hamlets.  By  state  law,  every 
township  is  compelled  to  furnish  high  school  edu 
cation  to  every  child  within  its  limits  prepared  to 
receive  it.  I  may  be  pardoned  for  the  belief  that  in 
other  respects  the  system  of  secondary  schools  in 
New  York  stands  at  the  head  or  at  least  abreast 
of  the  foremost,  the  best  in  organization  and  in 
spection,  with  as  good  results  as  any,  and  on  the 
largest  scale.  There  are  eight  hundred  secondary 
schools  in  that  single  state.  Independent  of  their 
support  through  local  taxes,  they  have  been  dis 
criminatingly  aided  from  the  literature  fund  since 
1790,  on  constant  inspection  of  schools  and  exam 
ination  of  pupils  by  the  state  regents,  to  the  extent 
of  over  four  and  a  half  million  dollars.  In  1903  they 
had  95,000  students,  spent  in  the  year  over  seven 
million  dollars,  and  had  net  property  to  the  amount 
of  thirty-four  millions.  The  whole  country  had  only 
fourteen  times  as  many  secondary  schools  in  its 

C  22°  H 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

forty-six  states,  with  only  eight  times  as  many 
pupils.  The  secondary  school  attendance  in  the 
whole  country  has  doubled  in  thirteen  years;  it  has 
doubled  in  New  York  in  nine  years.  Yet  while  at 
tendance  at  the  primary  school  is  compulsory,  that 
at  the  secondary  schools  is  not — the  state  feeling 
that  it  has  exhausted  its  right  of  self-protection 
against  ignorance  when  it  has  compelled  its  chil 
dren  to  acquire  an  elementary  education.  The  sec 
ondary  schools  are  held  to  a  high  standard  by  in 
spections,  examinations,  and  special  allowances  for 
special  efficiency ;  while  the  attempt  of  feeble  be 
ginners  to  masquerade  as  fully  equipped  schools  is 
rigidly  repressed.  As  the  state  superintendent  ex 
plained  it,  there  is  nothing  to  be  said  against  their 
starting  before  they  are  qualified  to  give  a  full  four 
years'  course,  but  everything  to  be  said  against  a 
fifty-cent  piece  having  the  effrontery  to  try  to  pass 
itself  for  a  dollar. 

Throughout  the  Union  the  secondary  schools 
are  generally  to  be  found  in  good  buildings— 
often,  especially  at  the  West,better  than  the  church 
or  the  court-house.  The  farther  west  you  go,  the 
more  noticeable  it  is  that  in  the  newest  and  rough 
est  settlements  the  one  important  structure  visi 
ble  in  the  landscape  is  the  large,  substantial,  and 
attractive  two-story  schoolhouse.  So  it  is  in  the 
deserts  of  Arizona  and  on  the  shores  of  Puget 
Sound;  so  it  is  in  the  remotest  and  most  isolated 
communities  in  Montana  or  in  Wyoming  or  in 
Idaho.  The  hardy  pioneer  himself  may  still  be  liv- 

C    221     ] 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

ing  in  an  adobe  or  in  a  sod  cabin ;  but  his  child,  that 
royal  personage  who  holds  the  sovereignty  of  the 
future,  must  be  schooled  in  what  is  to  him  a  palace. 

And  now  let  me  refer  more  briefly  to  the  top  of  the 
system,  the  colleges  and  universities.  No  doubt, 
with  reference  to  the  wisest  conservation  of  edu 
cational  force,  there  are  too  many  of  them.  One  may 
count  up  about  four  hundred  and  fifteen.  Of  these 
not  less  than  275  are  under  some  sort  of  sectarian 
or  denominational  control,  while  over  40  are  state 
institutions.  The  severest  critic  would  admit  that 
at  least  1 6  are  not  unworthy  to  stand  in  the  class 
headed  by  Harvard,  Yale, Columbia, and  Princeton. 
The  scope  and  quality  of  others  may  not  be  rated 
so  high,  but  more  and  more  the  education  they 
impart  grows  worthy  of  the  degrees  they  grant. 
The  collated  reports  of  328  of  them  show  a  total  of 
6207  professors,  associate  and  adjunct  professors, 
receiving  an  aggregate  of  over  nine  and  a  half  mil 
lion  dollars  in  salaries,  or  an  average  of  over  $1 500 
per  year.  In  denominational  colleges  the  average 
salary  falls  to  $  1 1 80 ;  in  the  state  institutions  it  rises 
to  nearly  $1800,  and  in  those  independent  of  both 
church  and  state  control  to  over  $1900.  In  these 
colleges  and  universities  there  were  in  1902,  one 
hundred  and  sixty-one  thousand  students.  If  you 
add  the  numbers  in  separate  professional  schools 
of  law,  medicine,  and  theology,  there  were  in  all 
over  two  hundred  thousand  students  pursuing  uni 
versity  studies. 

C  222  H 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

There  has  been  an  enormous  expansion  in  the 
oldest  and  best  universities  within  the  past  twenty- 
five  years.  Their  teaching  force  has  been  doubled 
or  even  trebled;  the  standards  for  admission  and 
for  thoroughness  of  instruction  have  both  been 
raised ;  there  has  been  a  great  broadening  of  scope, 
and  while  the  Humanities  have  not  been  displaced, 
there  is  far  greater  attention  than  formerly  to  mod 
ern  languages,  to  literature,  history,  economics, 
civics,  and  to  science  pure  and  applied. 

The  feeling  was  early  and  widespread,  partic 
ularly  at  the  West,  that  the  government  should 
support  colleges  and  universities  as  well  as  the 
primary  and  secondary  schools.  As  far  back  as  in 
1816,  the  constitution  of  the  new  State  of  Indiana 
provided  that  "it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General 
Assembly,  as  soon  as  circumstances  will  permit, 
to  provide  by  law  for  a  general  system  of  educa 
tion,  ascending  in  regular  gradation  from  township 
schools  to  a  state  university,  wherein  tuition  shall 
be  gratis  and  equally  open  to  all/'  Other  states 
moved  in  the  same  direction,  but  the  great  impulse 
came  in  the  passage  of  the  Land  Grant  Act  in  the 
second  year  of  our  Civil  War.  It  gave  each  state 
in  the  Union  public  land  in  proportion  to  its  repre 
sentation  in  Congress,  to  the  smallest  ninety  thou 
sand  acres,  to  the  largest  over  a  million,  "for  the 
endowment  and  maintenance  of  at  least  one  col 
lege,  whose  leading  object  shall  be,  without  ex 
cluding  other  scientific  and  classical  studies,  and 
including  military  tactics,  to  teach  such  branches 

223 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES  FACED 

of  learning  as  are  related  to  agriculture  and  the 
mechanic  arts  ...  in  order  to  promote  the  liberal 
and  practical  education  of  the  industrial  classes  in 
the  several  pursuits  and  professions  of  life/'  Con 
gress  has  since  increased  this  princely  endowment 
by  an  annual  appropriation  of  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  in  cash  to  each  institution  founded  under 
this  act. 

There  are  nowforty  of  them.  They  have  twenty- 
seven  hundred  instructors,  thirty-three  thousand 
students,  sixty  thousand  graduates,  twenty-two 
millions  of  productive  funds,  and  an  aggregate 
annual  income  of  six  millions  of  dollars.  In  all,  the 
ideal  of  a  free  university  education  for  anybody 
qualified  to  enter  is  approximated.  Fees,  where  any 
are  charged,  are  low.  Cornell  takes  free  six  hun 
dred  students  from  the  state  secondary  schools  on 
regents'  certificates  of  fitness.  Others  take  all  their 
students  free.  With  all  the  effort  is  to  complete 
and  crown  the  work  of  the  free  primary  and  sec 
ondary  school  system. 

Their  general  characteristics  are  less  promi 
nence  for  the  old  collegiate  "  Humanities/'  greater 
attention  to  science  and  particularly  to  applied 
science  with  reference  to  agriculture  and  the  in 
dustrial  arts,  a  greater  variety  and  freedom  of 
choice  in  elective  studies,  military  training,  and  the 
admission  of  women.  One  of  them,  which  may  be 
taken  as  a  fair  average  type,  divides  its  work  into 
eleven  different  colleges  or  schools,  ranging  from 
literature  and  the  arts  to  science,  engineering,  agri- 

[    224    H 


ITS  EDUCATIONAL  PROBLEM 

culture,  music,  ancient  and  modern  languages,  and 
library  science.  Then  its  school  for  post-graduates 
gives  advanced  instruction  in  twenty-seven  sub 
jects,  beginning  with  the  languages  and  mathe 
matics  and  extending  to  chemistry,  civil,  mechani 
cal,  electrical,  and  sanitary  engineering,  agricul 
ture,  horticulture,  etc.  In  short,  they  undertake 
most  of  the  work  of  the  older  universities  and  do 
it  well,  but  add  many  things  the  old  ones  never 
touched,  bringing  the  instruction  more  into  relation 
with  the  daily  life  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 
Half  a  dozen  of  them  might  be  named  which  main 
tain  practically  as  high  standards  and  offer  as  wide 
a  range  and  as  sound  instruction  as  the  best  of  the 
old  universities.  They  draw  fresh  blood  and  their 
chief  strength  from  the  robust  product  of  the  com 
mon  schools ;  they  are  yearly  becoming  more  and 
more  the  colleges  of  the  common  people,  often, 
especially  at  the  West,  of  all  the  people ;  and  their 
graduates  are  coming  forward  among  the  most 
prominent  and  most  useful  of  the  people's  leaders. 
I  have  tried  to  show  some  features  of  the  sys 
tem  that  is  growing  up  in  the  United  States  to  carry 
any  capable  child  in  all  the  land  from  primary 
school  to  university  at  the  public  expense;  aiming 
to  give  every  human  being  within  our  borders  his 
chance,  and  to  make  America  more  than  ever  the 
home  of  Opportunity — aiming,  first  of  all,  in  the 
golden  words  which  Abraham  Lincoln  signed  and 
made  alive,  "to  promote  the  liberal  and  practical 
education  of  the  industrial  classes/'  In  that  lies  our 


HOW  THE  UNITED  STATES,   tfc. 

hope  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  ordered  liberty 
under  law  over  a  united  country  that  stretches 
from  the  tropics  to  the  Arctic  Zone,  and  from  ocean 
to  ocean.  In  that  lies  our  hope  to  make  our  vast 
immigration  from  every  clime  and  race  capable  of 
sharing  and  carrying  on  a  complex  system  of  gov 
ernment  that  has  hitherto  taxed  the  best  resources 
and  best  qualities  of  the  best  native  stock  the  world 
ever  saw.  In  that  lies  our  trust  that  they  can  never 
be  long  misled  by  any  corpse-lights  from  the  grave 
yard  of  lost  hopes  and  abandoned  ambitions,  where 
collectivism  and  communism  hold  sway;  never 
maddened  by  the  more  lurid  temptations  that 
blaze  the  way  to  militant  anarchism.  The  second 
ary  school  and  the  state  university  are  our  antidote 
to  all  that  gospel  of  despair,  with  its  low  level  and 
dreary  monotony,  its  withdrawal  of  all  incentive 
to  rise,  and  its  fatal  obstruction  of  the  individual 
initiative  which  has  thus  far  been  the  greatest  sin 
gle  cause  of  our  marvellous  growth.  And  for  every 
other  ill,  as  for  this,  our  remedy  is  light,  and  again 
light,  and  to  the  end  more  and  more  light.  Withal 
we  try  to  keep  in  sight  as  well  as  we  can  the  real 
object  of  a  true  education,  as  John  Ruskin  stated 
it:  "To  make  people  not  only  do  the  right  things, 
but  enjoy  the  right  things — not  merely  industri 
ous,  but  to  love  industry — not  merely  learned,  but 
to  love  knowledge — not  merely  pure,  but  to  love 
purity — not  merely  just,  but  to  hunger  and  thirst 
after  justice." 

C  226  ] 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES  IN  AMERICA 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 
IN  AMERICA 

THE  nineteenth  century  is  commonly  said  to 
have  made  greater  progress  for  the  human 
race  than  all  that  preceded  it  since  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  era.  However  great,  it  was  a  progress 
made  possible  by  the  diffusion  of  learning ;  it  was 
very  largely  stimulated  by  American  colleges  and 
universities,  and  was  in  nothing  more  remarka 
ble  or  more  valuable  than  in  the  progress  of  these 
colleges  and  universities  themselves.  Their  growth 
in  influence,  the  change  in  their  character,  re 
sources,  and  scope  since  the  Civil  War  have  been 
almost  revolutionary. 

I  recall  a  conversation  with  Professor  Huxley, 
with  which  I  was  honored  in  my  younger  days. 
To  my  question  what,  on  the  whole,  he  thought 
the  greatest  achievement  of  the  century,  even 
then  nearly  four-fifths  passed,  he  replied,  not  as 
I  had  been  expecting, — the  telegraph,  or  the  tele 
phone,  or  the  ocean  cable,  or  steam  navigation ,  or 
the  photograph,  or  Bessemer  steel.  All  these  he 
brushed  aside,  in  order  to  select  as  the  greatest 
and  most  beneficent  discovery  of  the  nineteenth 
century, — antiseptic  surgery!  Surely,  in  a  like 
spirit,  we  can  hold  as  secondary  the  wonderful 
strides  America  has  made  in  subduing  a  continent, 
in  spreading  out  over  the  islands  of  the  sea,  in 
gaining  and  maintaining  independence,  and  even 
in  abolishing  slavery;  while  we  find  its  noblest 

[  229  ] 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

achievement  in  building  up  from  ocean  to  ocean 
a  gigantic  system,  free  practically  to  the  poorest 
as  well  as  to  the  richest  child  of  the  Republic, 
under  which  any  man  can  learn  anything.  Not  in 
the  armies  that  have  so  heroically  borne  our  flag, 
not  in  the  navies  whose  eight-inch  guns,  fired  on 
the  other  side  of  the  globe,  shattered  an  ancient 
monarchy  at  ten  thousand  miles  range;  not  in  the 
inventions  that  amaze,  nor  in  the  growth  that  be 
wilders,  nor  even  in  the  general  diffusion  of  com 
fort  that  beggars  the  world  for  parallels,  is  our 
greatest  glory  to  be  found.  Rather  is  it  in  the  mind 
that  has  been  enlightened,  in  the  life  that  has  been 
shaped  and  directed, — in  a  word,  it  is  in  the  kind 
of  man  that  America  rears. 

In  government  aid,  state  or  national,  for  edu 
cation,  and  in  private  gifts  for  education,  the  world 
has  never  seen  wealth  lavished  as  it  has  been  on 
this  continent  during  the  century  just  closed,  and 
especially  during  its  last  twenty-five  years.  What 
is  to  come  of  it  all  ?  We  may  no  doubt  claim  now 
the  widest  diffusion  of  learning  in  the  world ;  but 
how  can  we  best  entitle  ourselves  to  claim  also  the 
highest  and  best  learning  of  the  world?  Before 
essaying  to  answer  that  question,  we  may  find  it 
profitable  to  pause  for  a  moment  on  some  current 
complaints  about  what  we  have. 

One  is  that  education  is  too  cheap  and  open  to 
everybody;  and  that  in  consequence,  largely  at  the 
public  expense,  whole  classes  in  the  community 
are  educated  out  of  fitness  for  anything  that,  with 

C  230  ] 


IN  AMERICA 

their  limitations  of  intellect  or  character  or  envi 
ronment,  they  are  capable  of  doing.  We  spoil  a 
good  day  laborer,  it  is  said,  or  a  promising  young 
farmer  or  mechanic,  to  make  an  unsuccessful  shop 
keeper  or  a  worthless  lawyer.  But  this  is  only  an 
other  way  of  saying  that  the  man  has  missed  his 
vocation,  and  you  have  to  look  back  of  the  schools 
to  find  the  cause  for  that.  The  world  is  full  of  mis 
fits,  among  the  uneducated  as  well  as  the  educated. 
Educating  a  man — if  it  be  a  real  education  and  not 
a  smattering  you  give  him — does  not  intellectu 
ally  unfit  him  for  finding  what  he  can  do.  He  may 
develop  a  distaste  for  it,  but  that  is  the  fault  not 
of  the  education  but  of  the  character,  inherited  and 
developed  by  environment,  that  was  brought  to 
be  educated.  Other  things  being  equal,  an  educated 
man  is  far  better  qualified  than  an  uneducated 
one  to  find  out  what  he  is  fit  for  and  to  keep  at  it. 
"  Know  thyself"  is  one  of  the  first  maxims  of  phi 
losophy  ;  and  to  help  their  students  to  that  know 
ledge  is  one  of  the  highest  and  most  sacred  duties 
of  the  college.  The  man  that  is  really  educated  has 
learned  his  limitations,  and  found  out  at  least  what 
he  is  not  fit  for. It  is  the  half-educated  person, good- 
naturedly  carried  forward  in  classes  and  studies 
from  which  his  intellectual  or  other  limitations 
under  discriminating  and  honest  teaching  would 
have  excluded  him, that  is  unfitted  by  his  so-called 
education  for  what  he  can  do,  and  not  fitted  for  any 
thing  else.  To  avoid  turning  a  lad's  head  by  letting 
him  think  he  has  mastered  a  study  "  well  enough" 

[  231    3 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

when  he  has  been  found  incapable  of  grasping  it 
at  all,  is  as  much  the  duty  of  the  conscientious  edu 
cator  as  to  teach  him  what  he  is  capable  of  learn 
ing.  When  he  is  relentlessly  turned  back  from  the 
preparatory  studies  that  are  beyond  him,  there  is 
the  less  danger  of  his  being  drawn  from  the  pro 
ductive  work  he  should  remain  at,  to  the  profes 
sion  he  is  unfit  for.  No  doubt,  in  the  interest  of  the 
state  and  the  community,  the  true  rule  for  the  sec 
ondary  schools  as  well  as  the  colleges — if  the  ideal 
could  be  attained — would  be  to  make  it  easy  for 
every  youth  to  get  all  the  education  his  capacity 
will  warrant  and  his  circumstances  permit,  and 
difficult  for  him  to  try  for  any  more. 

Another  current  complaint  is  that  many  of  these 
colleges  are  little  beyond  pretentious  high  schools ; 
that  they  degrade  degrees  by  giving  them  to  unfit 
graduates ;  degrade  learning  by  lowering  its  stand 
ards  ;  and  degrade  men  by  making  them  charlatans 
while  calling  them  and  making  them  think  them 
selves  scholars.  There  is  an  element  of  justice  here, 
as  there  is  apt  to  be  in  widespread  complaints  of 
almost  any  sort.  But  it  is  not  true  that  a  commu 
nity  is  worse  off  for  having  feeble  colleges ;  though 
certainly  it  would  always  be  better  off  if  it  had  bet 
ter  ones.  In  various  educational  publications — and 
among  others  in  one  sent  under  the  authority  of 
the  State  of  New  York  to  represent  the  condition 
of  our  education  in  the  World's  Fair  at  Paris  — 
there  is  free  censure  of  the  State  of  Ohio  for  dissi 
pating  on  thirty-six  small  colleges  energies  which 

C  232  ] 


IN  AMERICA 

might  make  one  or  two  great  ones.  But  does  not 
this  miss  the  real  objection  to  the  condition  in 
Ohio?  If  there  is  a  valid  objection  at  all,  it  must  be 
less  that  the  colleges  are  not  large,  than  that  they 
are  not  good. 

A  third  complaint,  then,  and  a  just  one,  is  that  an 
undignified  and  unworthy  competition  for  students 
among  some  weak  colleges  and  universities  has 
lowered  courses  of  study,  cheapened  degrees,  de 
ceived  students,  and  generally  degraded  education. 
The  aim  has  been  to  see  how  soon  they  could  turn 
students  out,  not  how  much  they  could  teach  them. 
Thus  the  vulgar  ambition  to  use  the  numbers  ad 
mitted  and  the  fees  received  as  a  test  and  adver 
tisement  of  success  has  led  to  the  spectacle  of  some 
schools  clamorously  announcing,  almost  in  the 
shrill  fashion  after  which  the  street  merchant  vends 
his  wares,  that  you  can  get  as  much  here,  owing 
to  our  superior  process  of  cramming,  in  two  years 
as  you  can  get  at  the  shop  across  the  way  in  three, 
—and  so  have  just  a  year  saved  in  your  lifetime 
in  which  you  can  be  busy  making  money.  In  other 
schools  the  very  source  is  poisoned  by  the  admis 
sion  of  students  without  adequate  preparation,  on 
the  plea  that  the  superior  facilities  in  the  college 
will  make  up  for  any  deficiencies  in  the  prepara 
tory  work.  One  way  or  the  other,  swarms  of  strug 
gling  institutions  which  look  first  to  numbers  and 
fees,  and  only  afterward  to  thoroughness  and  ad 
equate  scope,  do  bring  discredit  upon  education,  do 
give  many  young  people  a  distaste  for  any  work 

233 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

they  are  fit  for  in  the  world,  do  draw  to  the  cities 
shoals  of  people  who  would  live  better  and  stand 
higher  in  the  country,  and  do  crowd  the  profes 
sions  with  worthless  lawyers,  physicians,  and  cler 
gymen  who  ought  to  be  at  the  plough.  But  it  is  the 
sham,  not  the  education,  that  does  the  harm ;  and 
that  sham  should  be  hunted  down  relentlessly, 
whether  found  in  the  colleges  themselves,  or  in 
the  medical  or  other  professional  schools  of  the 
universities. 

There  is  a  just  complaint,  too,  against  institutions 
of  a  better  class  for  the  low  and  bookkeeping  spirit 
in  which  matters  of  learning  are  sometimes  treated. 
Thus  this  question  is  occasionally  made  the  vital 
one,  not  what  has  he  learned  ?  but  how  many  hours 
has  he  given  to  the  study  ?  and  above  all  is  there 
a  system  of  educational  hocus-pocus,  a  plan  for  the 
student  to  hoist  himself  to  the  educational  ceiling 
by  a  tug  at  his  educational  bootstraps,  through  the 
ingenious  process  of  counting  these  same  hours 
twice — once  for  the  college  and  once  for  the  pro 
fessional  training  that  is  to  follow !  Grave,  grown 
men,  who  imagine  themselves  engaged  in  promot 
ing  advanced  learning,  have  been  found  to  write 
out  the  details  for  this  educational  sleight-of-hand, 
and  insinuatingly  explain  to  ingenuous  youth  how 
the  time  devoted  to  this  or  that  particular  study 
may  be  contrived,  like  Box  and  Cox's  bedroom,  or 
like  Goldsmith's  furniture,  a  double  debt  to  pay, 
a  chest  of  drawers  in  college  and  a  bed  of  down 
in  the  law  school !  To  make  hours  of  study  rather 

C    234   J 


IN  AMERICA 

than  maturity  of  mind  and  acquirement  the  prelim 
inary  for  professional  courses,  and  then  to  select 
the  studies  so  that  these  hours  can  be  counted  first 
on  the  preliminary  and  again  on  the  professional 
work,  is  the  sort  of  shifty  thrift  that  in  less  ideal 
realms  is  apt  to  bring  a  man  to  the  constable. 

Nevertheless,  after  its  bad  fashion,  this  practice 
does  meet  another  popular  complaint.  If  a  boy  is  to 
work  his  way  in  life,  parents  often  say,  he  cannot 
spare  so  much  time  before  getting  at  it.  The  young 
man  kept  in  college  till  twenty-two,  and  in  pro 
fessional  studies  three  or  four  years  more,  starts 
at  twenty-five  or  twenty-six,  it  is  complained,  in  a 
competition  that  can  only  be  disastrous,  with  the  boy 
who  set  up  for  himself  at  eighteen.  Now,  if  the  end 
of  educating  a  man  is  only  to  get  him  ready  to  keep 
a  shop,  or  run  a  factory  or  an  iron-mill,  or  to  go 
into  Wall  Street,  or  in  some  way  merely  to  make 
money,  I  am  not  much  inclined  to  dispute  that  con 
tention.  At  least  it  is  difficult  to  match  from  among 
college  or  university  graduates  such  an  array  of 
non-collegiate  names,  representing  the  greatest 
present  business  success,  as  will  readily  occur  to 
every  one.  The  men  who  consolidated  the  Astor 
fortune  came,  it  is  true,  from  Heidelberg,  but  the 
man  who  founded  it  did  not.  The  founders  of  the 
Vanderbilt,  the  Morgan,  the  Moses  Taylor,  the 
Goelet,  the  Mackay,  the  Gould,  or  the  Cooper 
fortunes  came  from  no  college  at  home  or  abroad. 
Take  the  most  conspicuous  business  successes, 
confessedly  won  and  maintained  by  high  ability, 

C  235  3 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

now  or  recently  at  the  front  in  New  York.  C.  P. 
Huntington,  for  example,  was  emancipated  from 
schools  of  any  kind  long  before  he  was  eighteen. 
So  were  John  and  William  Rockefeller,  and  so — 
not  to  weary  you  with  mere  enumeration — so  was 
Andrew  Carnegie.  The  latter  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  hold  college  training  a  positive  disqualification 
for  business.  "The  graduate  has  not  the  slightest 
chance/'  he  says,  "as  against  the  boy  who  swept 
the  office/' 

Mr.  Grover  Cleveland,  who  gave  this  subject 
some  consideration,  remarked  acutely  enough  that 
the  methods  in  great  enterprises  had  so  changed 
of  late  as  to  demand  a  higher  grade  of  education, 
and  that  the  new  competition  easily  distanced  the 
self-made  man  who  started  young  without  equal 
equipment  for  the  race.  In  the  field  particularly  of 
applied  science  and  invention  Mr.  Cleveland  had 
much  reason  for  his  belief;  and  the  tendencies  of 
an  age  in  which  the  engineer,  the  chemist,  and  the 
electrician  threaten  to  be  kings  are  sure  to  do  a 
great  deal  more  to  confirm  it.  But  the  fact  remains 
that,  within  the  general  knowledge,  the  very  great 
est  business  successes  of  recent  years,  the  greatest 
quite  up  to  this  present  moment,  have  been  more 
generally  won  by  men  who  were  at  work  before 
twenty  instead  of  in  college. 

What  tfien?  Must  men  who  expect  to  follow 
business  careers  abandon  the  joy  and  comfort  of 
a  liberal  education?  There  are  several  answers. 
One  is  the  argumen turn  ad  hominem.  The  success- 

236 


IN  AMERICA 

ful  self-made  man  scarcely  ever  favors  that  course 
himself,  when  it  comes  to  the  education  of  his  own 
sons.  Another  is  that  there  are  specialized  courses 
provided  by  all  the  leading  colleges  now,  which 
partly  meet  the  wants  of  those  who  think  they  must 
begin  life  by  seventeen  or  eighteen. 

But,  more  conclusive  than  either,  there  are  bet 
ter  things  to  aim  at  than  mere  money-making, — 
at  least  for  those  not  pressed  by  an  inexorable 
necessity, — higher  joys  than  that  of  simple  busi 
ness  success.  If  there  are  many  who  must  forego 
these  for  the  sake  of  beginning  life  prematurely, 
—sweeping  out  the  shop,  as  Mr.  Carnegie  puts  it, 
in  the  hope  of  coming  some  day  to  own  the  shop, — 
that  is  no  reason  why  the  institutions  of  higher 
learning  should  not  develop  along  the  best  lines 
for  the  sake  of  the  steadily  increasing  number  in 
this  prosperous  land  who  can  take  time  for  the  best 
things.  This  is  no  longer  a  young,  poor  people  on 
a  wild,  unexplored  continent,  struggling  desper 
ately  with  hard  circumstances  to  make  a  beginning. 
It  is  a  great  nation,  rich  with  the  unprecedented 
progress  and  accumulated  prosperity  of  a  hundred 
years.  The  average  man  no  longer  needs,  like  the 
sons  of  the  pioneers,  to  sacrifice  the  highest  things 
of  which  he  is  capable  for  the  sake  of  getting  into 
the  shop  early,  so  as  not  to  be  outstripped  in  the 
mere  race  for  a  living.  Success  in  American  life  here 
after  will  be  measured  with  more  characters  than 
merely  the  dollar-mark;  and  American  education 
must  be  shaped  in  the  future  to  fit  the  man,  rather 

C   237   H 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

than  merely  his  business.  Many,  no  doubt,  who 
will  hold  deservedly  high  places  in  the  twentieth 
century  must  be  at  work  by  eighteen  or  earlier ;  but 
that  is  a  reason  for  giving  them  such  an  education 
as  they  need  and  can  assimilate,  not  for  lowering 
the  college  standard,  to  the  detriment  of  all  the 
rest,  in  order  to  give  them  the  deceptive  decoration 
of  a  diploma  thus  depreciated  and  undeserved. 

Akin  to  this  tendency  to  cheapen  the  lower 
degrees  for  the  sake  of  students  who  lack  the 
time  to  earn  them  is  another  error,  barely  show 
ing  itself,  in  quarters  more  advanced,  of  which 
whispers  begin  to  be  heard.  This  is  the  fault  of 
encouraging  post-graduate  study  for  the  higher 
learning,  less  for  its  own  sake  than  for  the  degree. 
Thus  one  reads  in  a  recent  and  important  educa 
tional  authority  about  the  respective  advantages 
of  divers  ways  and  means  of  "  studying  for  the 
Doctorate,  as  the  goal  to  which  the  graduate  stu 
dent  presses  on. "It  is  a  high  ambition,  no  doubt. 
And  yet  there  have  been  educational  authorities 
with  a  loftier  view  of  their  mission,  who  sought 
to  lead  their  students  to  move  on  a  higher  plane 
and  strive  for  a  worthier  goal.  If  students  are  en 
couraged  to  select  what  advanced  learning  they 
are  to  seek,  and  to  shape  the  course  of  study  they 
adopt  in  any  measure  with  reference  simply  to  its 
degree- producing  powers, — if  they  do  not  seek  it 
for  itself  and  choose  the  course  purely  because  it 
is  the  most  helpful  to  the  end,  then  our  post-grad 
uate  courses  must  have  less  value  and  our  degrees 

C  238  ] 


IN  AMERICA 

must  convey  less  distinction.  The  man  who  serves 
his  imperilled  countrymen  in  an  alarming  crisis 
by  a  supreme  act  of  devotion  may  well  prize  the 
Victoria  Cross  with  which  his  proud  and  grateful 
country  distinguishes  him.  But  if  he  laid  his  course, 
not  as  a  patriot  to  do  his  duty  to  his  imperilled 
countrymen ,  but  merely  as  an  adventurer,  feeling 
the  need  of  decoration,  to  hunt  for  the  quickest 
and  easiest  opportunity  to  get  it,  the  cross  wears 
another  aspect  if  won,  and  carries  an  altogether 
different  value. 

There  are  objectors,  too,  who  question  the 
advantage  of  the  present  overwhelming  tend 
ency,  especially  at  the  West,  toward  collegiate 
and  university  coeducation.  Certainly,  in  no  part  of 
the  educational  field  has  greater  progress  been 
made  than  in  the  facilities  for  the  education  of  wo 
men  ;  and  shrivelled  must  be  the  soul  that  would 
have  it  otherwise.  Vassar,  Smith,  Wellesley,  Bryn 
Ma wr,  have  long  marked  a  higher  standard  than 
similar  schools  for  women  in  other  lands ;  and  now 
colleges  abroad,  like  Girton  and  Newnham,  enjoy 
ing  high  university  affiliations,  are  at  last  finding 
their  worthy  counterparts  here  in  Radcliffe  and 
Barnard  and  others.  It  is  an  inspiring  progress, 
and  even  if  it  may  have  been  carried  in  some  in 
stitutions  to  an  illogical  development,  the  error, 
if  error  there  be,  will  cure  itself.  But  certainly  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  western  trend  to  direct 
coeducation  in  colleges  and  universities  is  plainly 
at  variance  with  another  development  we  have  all 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

regarded  as  characteristic  of  progress  toward  the 
higher  education, — the  process  of  differentiation 
and  specialization.  Grant  at  once,  as  a  thing  no 
body  in  this  age  dreams  of  questioning,  the  right  of 
woman,  quite  as  clear  as  the  right  of  man,  to  learn 
everything.  But  the  fact  remains  that  the  great  ma 
jority  of  women  seeking  an  advanced  education 
will  probably  in  time  come  to  do  the  same  thing  the 
men  do, — specialize  it  with  reference  to  the  life 
they  are  going  to  lead ;  and  the  girl  graduate  from 
one  of  the  great  coeducational  universities  is  not, 
as  a  rule,  going  to  lead  the  same  life  as  the  bach 
elor  of  science,  or  the  bachelor  of  electrical  engi 
neering.  If  the  highest  progress  be  in  differentia 
tion  and  specialization  of  effort,  then  women  are 
entitled  to  that  progress  as  well  as  men ;  and  uni 
versity  coeducation,  though,  perhaps,  as  yet  the 
most  economical,  is  manifestly  not  the  best  way 
of  supplying  it.  On  the  disadvantages  that  some 
think  they  find  in  throwing  the  two  sexes  into  the 
intimacy  of  a  common  college  life  at  the  most 
impressionable  period,  when  their  thoughts  ought 
to  be  on  their  books  and  are  so  easily  kindled  in 
stead  into  dreams  of  love  and  matrimony,  I  do  not 
imagine  it  profitable  to  dwell.  The  parents  who 
send  their  sons  and  daughters  to  coeducational  in 
stitutions  know  what  they  are  doing.  One  can  only 
say  about  the  system  they  are  likely  to  select, 
what  Mr.  Lincoln  said  about  the  book : "  If  you  like 
this  kind  of  a  book,  then  I  reckon  this  is  just  about 
the  book  you  would  like/' 

C  240  ] 


IN  AMERICA 

An  acute  English  observer,  Mr.  Bryce,  remarks 
that  German  universities  are  popular,  but  not  free ; 
English  universities  free,  but  not  popular;  and 
American  universities  both  popular  and  free.  Let 
us  hope  that  these  characteristics  in  our  system 
may  be  preserved  in  their  purity.  Long  may  we 
continue  to  have  our  universities  popular  in  the 
sense  that  they  are  open  on  equal  terms  to  every 
rank  and  condition  of  life — that  they  have  no  un 
written  laws  restricting  them  to  the  sons  of  gen 
tlemen  of  birth  or  distinction,  and  making  them 
uncomfortable  for  anybody  else.  Long  may  they 
remain  free,  in  the  sense  that  the  instruction  is 
limited  only  by  the  desire  to  seek  and  to  teach 
the  truth.  But  the  popularity  will  be  harmful  if  it 
degenerates  into  a  vulgar  catering  for  numbers  by 
throwing  down  the  bars  of  admission  which  time 
and  experience  have  sanctioned ;  and  the  liberty 
will  be  disastrous  if  it  degenerates  into  license, 
whether  for  the  students  in  their  conduct,  or  for 
the  professors  in  their  teaching.  The  freedom  for 
a  student  which  absolves  him  from  the  obligations 
of  a  gentleman  is  no  better  and  no  worse  than  the 
freedom  for  a  professor  which  absolves  him  from 
the  duties  of  a  patriot,  and  converts  his  relations 
to  his  country  into  general  railings  against  its 
present  and  its  past  policy,  rather  than  the  exer 
cise  of  an  influence,  justly  belonging  to  the  highly 
educated  and  highly  placed,  upon  the  country's 
future.  It  is  a  misfortune  for  the  colleges,  and  no 
less  for  the  country,  when  the  trusted  instructors 

C  241  ] 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

are  out  of  sympathy  with  its  history,  with  its  devel 
opment,  and  with  the  men  who  made  the  one  and 
are  guiding  the  other. 

It  was  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  these  re 
marks  that  the  splendid  gifts  of  learning  which  illu 
minate  and  ennoble  our  history,  and  in  an  unprece 
dented  degree  our  recent  history,  entitle  us  to  ex 
pect  for  our  country  the  highest  and  best  learning 
of  the  world.  But  what  is  the  highest  and  best?  Or, 
if  that  question  be  too  abstract  for  a  conclusive  an 
swer,  what  is  the  highest  and  best  for  this  coun 
try  ?  What  sort  of  education  does  a  republic  most 
need  in  the  days  of  its  overwhelming  success  and 
unparalleled  prosperity?  Perhaps  a  solution  may 
be  easier  if  we  state  the  problem  differently.  What 
defects  of  human  character  does  a  republic  tend 
to  develop,  that  the  higher  education  should  cor 
rect? 

Well,  our  critics,  foreign  and  domestic,  are  free- 
spoken  enough  to  leave  us  little  difficulty  in  find 
ing  answers  to  that.  We  are  conceited  beyond  en 
durance.  We  brag  like  Bombastes.  We  are  slow  to 
believe  that  other  people  can  teach  us  anything. 
We  have  the  provincial  idea  that  because  we  are 
conspicuously  ahead  in  some  things,  we  are  ahead 
in  everything.  We  reach  conclusions  without  see 
ing  a  subject  on  all  sides,  and  are  then  intolerant 
of  diversity  of  opinion.  We  value  big  things  sim 
ply  because  of  their  bigness.  We  live  in  a  whirl 
of  money-making,  or  amusement,  or  excitement  of 
some  kind;  we  rarely  take  time  to  think  of  other 

[    242    ]] 


IN  AMERICA 

things,  and,  because  we  are  too  busy  for  it  our 
selves,  we  let  the  newspapers  make  up  our  minds 
for  us.  When  acting  collectively  we  are  liable  to 
go  off  at  half-cock,  and  are  swept  by  sudden  waves 
of  popular  excitement,  like  the  French.  We  do  so 
many  things  in  a  hurry  that  often  we  fail  to  do 
some  of  them  thoroughly.  We  come  to  think  that 
pretty  well  is  good  enough ;  that  veneer  is  better 
than  the  solid  mahogany,  looking  just  as  well  and 
costing  far  less ;  that  a  chromo  is  as  good  as  the 
oil-painting  from  which  a  casual  glance  does  not 
distinguish  it ;  that  a  plaster  cast  of  the  Venus  of 
Milo  is, "for  practical  purposes,"  about  as  good 
as  the  broken  and  discolored  old  marble  in  the 
Louvre ;  that  a  machine-made  American  carpet  is 
as  good  as  the  rug  from  the  looms  of  India ;  a  pot- 
metal  vase  for  the  garden  as  good  as  one  of  bronze 
or  marble;  an  iron  cornice,  painted  stone  color,  as 
good  as  one  of  the  carved  stone ;  always  the  thing 
that  has  been  done  by  wholesale  by  machinery, 
"more  in  the  prevailing  style,"  and  just  as  good 
for  practical  people  as  the  thing  patiently  wrought 
in  every  line  to  individual  beauty  by  a  trained  and 
beauty-loving  intelligence. 

Do  not  these  superficial  defects  go  deeper?  Has 
there  not  been  a  constant  tendency,  developed 
by  democratic  institutions  thus  far  everywhere,  in 
ancient  times  as  well  as  our  own,  to  level  down ; 
sometimes  to  pare  off  individualism  in  character  or 
action;  often  to  resent  and  pull  down  superiority, 
to  encourage  mediocrity,  and  to  try  to  believe,  if 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

not  to  avow,  as  a  necessary  article  of  true  demo 
cratic  faith,  that  mediocrity  is  equal  to  the  best 
and  just  as  good?  Naturally,  this  tendency,  which 
a  republic  generally  seems  to  develop,  will  lead  to 
treating  men  not  as  individuals, but  in  great  masses. 
It  thus  invades  the  field  of  education  and  converts 
the  noblest  work  confided  to  man — the  moulding, 
one  might  almost  say  the  very  creation  of  individ 
ual  character — into  high-pressure  arrangements 
for  the  production  of  scholars  by  wholesale ;  into 
schemes  to  shape  and  manufacture  characters  and 
lives  like  watches  or  steam-engines  by  machinery. 
Should  the  best  American  education  tend  to  con 
trol  this  bias  of  republican  institutions  or  be  con 
trolled  by  it?  If  the  latter,  then  let  us  make  our  col 
leges  and  universities  bigger  and  bigger;  crowd 
more  scores  and  hundreds  of  eager,  immature  in 
dividual  human  units  into  each  class,  and  deal  with 
them  in  gross ;  run  our  institutions  as  one  or  two 
( for  better  reasons,  no  doubt)  are  already  run,  on 
full  time  or  overtime,  like  a  factory,  summer  and 
winter,  spring  and  autumn ;  show  the  students  how 
to  make  one  hour  count  for  two ;  veneer  and  var 
nish  them  as  quickly  as  possible;  and  let  each 
educational  factory  be  rated  by  the  rapidity  of  its 
methods  and  the  quantity  of  its  output.  But  if  the 
best  education  for  a  republic  should  tend  to  coun 
teract  the  defects  it  develops,  and  to  elevate  and 
strengthen  it  for  a  long  and  successful  life,  is  it  not 
clear  that  we  shall  do  better  with  less  wholesale 
processes,  that  our  effort  must  be  to  exert  individ- 

C   244   3 


IN  AMERICA 

ual  influence  upon  the  individual  youth  to  be  trained 
with  reference  to  his  individual  wants,  and  that  if 
changes  are  to  occur,  it  is  better  colleges  we  want 
instead  of  bigger  ones  ? 

Consider  the  extent  to  which  we  have  gone  in 
banishing  the  parent  or  teacher  from  his  old  close 
and  intimate  influence  with  the  individual  boy.  The 
most  fashionable  educational  tendency  of  the  day, 
particularly  in  our  large  cities,  eliminates  family  in 
fluence  from  the  school  period  almost  at  the  outset 
by  abandoning  our  excellent  secondary  schools,  or 
even  the  local  private  schools,  in  either  of  which 
that  influence  might  still  be  maintained.  The  boy 
must  not  be  made  a  mollycoddle.  He  must  not  be 
kept  tied  to  his  mother's  apron  strings.  He  must 
learn  to  rough  it  with  other  boys,  and  dig  his 
strenuous  way  through  the  rough  and  tumble  of  a 
distant  boarding-school  without  being  able  to  run 
always  to  sympathizing  parents  in  trouble  or  in 
trivial  illness.  That,  we  are  told,  is  the  only  way  to 
make  a  man  of  him.  He  must  not  be  guarded  from 
evil.  To  do  that  long  is  impossible;  therefore  take 
him  away  from  his  family  life,  expose  him  early  to 
contamination,  and  let  him  learn  to  conquer  it,  if 
he  can,  by  fighting  his  battle  alone.  And  so  the  boy 
must  be  thrown  more  with  other  boys  than  with 
parents  or  teachers  from  the  outset,  and  must  be 
sent  at  a  tender  age  to  St.  Paul's  or  St.  Mark's, 
or  Groton  or  Lawrenceville,  or  the  Pacific  coast 
equivalents,  for  a  four  or  six  years'  stay.  Then  the 

[   245   J 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

parents,  who  have  scarcely  seen  him  save  at  vaca 
tions,  part  with  him  again,  and  he  enters  one  of  the 
big  colleges.  Here  he  finds  himself  in  a  class  of 
several  hundred  freshmen,  with  little  possibility 
for  more  than  a  speaking  acquaintance  with  the 
professors  in  the  class-room,  and  less  likelihood  of 
much  close  contact  with  them  outside.  The  individ 
ual  and  social  substitutes  for  family  influence  that 
make  up  the  refined  life  of  the  English  university 
are  largely  lacking  in  the  American  system,  and 
the  young  men  in  these  big  colleges  are  still  ne 
cessarily  dealt  with  in  the  mass,  and  given  their 
education  by  wholesale. 

Consider  next  how  the  intense  practicality  of 
our  education  hitherto — the  insistent  demand  for 
something  from  the  colleges  that  would  let  the  stu 
dent  think  himself  liberally  educated,  and  yet  let 
him  begin  life  early — has  drawn  us  away  from  the 
highest  aims.  Let  us  revert  again  to  the  inquiry, 
What  sort  of  an  education  does  a  republic  most 
need  for  its  most  favored  citizens  in  the  days  of 
its  bewildering  success  and  prosperity  ?  Do  not  the 
very  quality  of  its  defects  and  the  nature  of  its 
dangers  compel  the  answer  that  what  the  Repub 
lic  thus  needs  is  not  merely  or  mostly  knowledge? 
No  doubt  it  must  always  strive  for  an  education 
that  will  place  the  experience  of  the  world  in  all 
ages  at  its  service.  But  beyond  and  far  above  that 
must  be  its  development  of  the  disposition  for  re 
flection,  the  power  to  consider  dispassionately,  the 
capacity  to  reason  accurately,  and  then  to  reach 

C  246  j 


IN  AMERICA 

just  judgments  on  these  acquired  facts.  One  of  the 
easiest  tasks  in  the  world  is  to  learn  things.  The 
child  does  it  almost  by  instinct.  One  of  the  hardest 
tasks  in  the  world  is  to  think  about  things  exactly, 
judiciously,  correctly;  to  estimate,  to  weigh,  to 
give  the  proper  value  to  each,  to  reach  sound 
conclusions, — in  a  word,  to  make  the  knowledge 
of  things  of  the  most  value  for  the  conduct  of  life. 
When  the  crude  knowledge  has  thus  been  assim 
ilated  by  the  reflective  mind,  as  the  ruminating 
animal  assimilates  the  crude  food  for  the  physical 
frame,  there  has  come  a  new  quality  to  the  student. 
Out  of  the  things  he  has  learned  and  the  philoso 
phy  that  has  taught  him  their  meanings  and  rela 
tions  has  come  the  faculty  of  seeing  straight  and 
of  thinking  straight,  and  from  this  follows,  as  cer 
tainly  as  the  needle  follows  the  pole,  the  crowning 
gift  of  living  straight.  Knowledge  as  the  basis  there 
must  be :  knowledge  of  what  the  world  has  done 
and  is  doing,  in  civics,  in  economics,  in  everything 
relating  to  the  history  or  the  science  of  govern 
ment;  knowledge  of  man, — the  being  to  be  gov 
erned, — of  the  motives  that  influence  his  conduct, 
the  circumstances  that  change  his  purpose,  what 
his  mind  is  and  how  it  works;  knowledge  of  the 
languages  he  works  with,  of  the  literature  that  in 
spires  him  and  the  laws  that  govern  him;  know 
ledge  of  the  ideas  he  cherishes,  the  faith  he  holds, 
the  customs  and  prejudices  that  hold  him.  But  all 
these  are  as  nothing,  and  may  even  be  worse,  with 
out  the  reflection,  the  reasoning,  the  judgment, 

C   247   H 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

that  transmute  them  into  charts  for  our  guidance 
and  safeguards  against  our  dangers.  First,  then, 
the  Republic,  where  every  citizen  is  a  ruler,  needs 
knowledge,  of  course,  for  its  citizens ;  but  next  and 
more  it  needs  the  judgment  which  can  vitalize 
knowledge;  and  then  the  character,  born  of  the 
right  principles  coming  from  the  two,  which  fruc 
tifies  both  and  becomes  the  most  precious  posses 
sion  of  the  state. 

In  thus  noting  the  need  of  more  direct  personal 
contact  and  individual  influence  between  teacher 
and  taught,  or  in  noting  the  need  of  strengthen 
ing  the  college  course  where  it  has  been  weakened 
by  changes  making  it  more  attractive  to  practical 
people  who  are  in  a  hurry  to  begin  life,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  intention  to  disparage  or  undervalue 
the  undeniable  merits  of  what  we  have.  Surely, 
enough  has  been  said  already  to  show  an  adequate 
appreciation  of  our  progress  under  the  present  sys 
tem  and  the  marvels  it  has  wrought.  But  it  is  fair, 
I  think,  to  say,  in  a  general  way,  and  with  admis 
sion  in  advance  of  the  thousands  of  exceptions, 
that  hitherto  our  education  in  this  country  has 
been  to  make  a  living.  The  country  is  old  enough 
and  prosperous  enough  now  to  warrant  us  in  ex 
pecting  that  henceforth  it  will  be  more  an  educa 
tion  to  make  a  life.  I  would  plead,  then,  for  a  sys 
tem  that  would  put  the  most  into  one's  life,  rather 
than  for  that  which  enables  one  quickest  to  begin 
life  and  earn  a  living.  That,  too,  has  its  place,  su 
premely  important  in  the  past,  highly  important 

C   248    3 


IN  AMERICA 

still  and  always.  But  let  us  not  deceive  ourselves 
as  to  proportions  and  values.  It  is  not  the  highest.  To 
make  a  life,  full,  rounded,  with  balanced  character 
and  serenity  of  judgment,  with  trained  capacities 
for  the  highest  work,  the  highest  appreciation,  the 
fullest  and  purest  enjoyment, — that  is  a  greater 
thing  than  to  make  a  living! 

Unless  these  observations  have  wholly  missed  their 
purpose,  they  must  now  have  led  us  at  least  to 
consider,  if  not  to  accept,  two  propositions  which 
seem  to  me  to  sum  up  the  next  advances  for  Amer 
ican  colleges  and  universities.  They  need  now  to 
give  more  individual  attention  to  the  individual 
pupil,  and  they  need  to  lead  him  on  paths  to  the  best 
learning  for  the  best  life,  rather  than  merely  for 
the  quickest  business  or  professional  success.  The 
first  proposition  does  not  point  to  big  colleges ;  and 
the  second  does  not  point  to  university  develop 
ment  exclusively  on  the  lines  thus  far  most  in  favor. 
Bigger  colleges  must  mean  less  individual  influ 
ence  on  the  eager  immature  mind ;  the  specializa 
tion  most  in  favor  now  in  our  universities  is  that 
which  leads  to  ways  to  make  a  living,  and  while  no 
one  would  want  less  of  that,  the  highest  education 
must  give  more  of  something  else. 

We  started  in  America  with  the  English  idea  of 
a  college.  Later  we  grew  into  the  German  idea  of 
a  university.  We  changed  the  English  college, after 
the  American  fashion,  by  making  it  bigger  and,  as 
we  thought,  more  practical.  Then  we  rejected  the 

C    249   H 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

English  idea  of  a  university,  partly  because  the 
"  shrieks  of  locality/'  as  some  politicians  once  ex 
pressed  it,  made  such  a  grouping  of  colleges  at 
one  spot  difficult,  if  not  impossible ;  but  still  more 
because  the  English  idea  chiefly  encouraged  what 
might  be  called  pure  learning,  as  distinguished  from 
the  professional  and  specialized  teaching  which  was 
a  more  marked  characteristic  of  the  German  uni 
versity.  The  outcome  is,  first,  colleges  sometimes 
as  big  as  half  a  dozen  English  ones,  and  then  cer 
tain  professional,  scientific,  and  technical  schools 
added,  and  the  whole  called  a  university.  But  this 
has  been  attended  by  material  changes  in  the 
course  of  the  college  intended  to  facilitate  entrance 
to,  and  perhaps  quicken  passage  through,  the  uni 
versity.  It  all  makes, beyond  question, an  admirable 
outcome  for  the  practical  people  that  needed  and 
organized  it.  But  it  is  not  the  best  outcome  now  for 
a  people  who  have  outgrown  their  early  needs. 

When  the  next  Stanford  has  another  forty  mil 
lions  or  more  to  expend  in  an  effort  to  give  his 
country  an  institution  of  learning  worthy  of  its  glo 
rious  present  and  its  bewildering  future,  why  not 
begin  with  the  idea  of  an  eminent  church  dignitary 
of  the  West,that  a  university,  primarily  considered, 
is  less  a  school  than  an  atmosphere?  Let  him  create 
the  atmosphere  by  grouping  and  organizing  his 
colleges  in  close  and  friendly  emulation,  as  at  Ox 
ford  or  Cambridge.  Then  let  him  see  to  it  that  the 
entrance  requirements  admit  only  students  capable 
of  using  the  opportunities  he  offers,  and  that  the 

250 


IN  AMERICA 

colleges  prescribe  only  those  courses  of  study  which 
the  best  experience  of  the  world  has  found  to  fur 
nish  the  best  basis  for  any  profession,  or  for  fur 
ther  intellectual  training  in  any  direction.  When  he 
has  thus  secured  them  the  best  start,  let  him  open 
to  the  graduates  of  these  colleges  a  real  university, 
comprising  the  best  features  of  both  the  English 
and  the  German  type,  with  the  splendid  encour 
agement  Oxford  and  Cambridge  offer  for  the  fur 
ther  prosecution  of  learning  for  its  own  sake,  and 
with  all  the  professional,  scientific,  technological, 
and  other  schools  and  courses  we  have  already 
adapted  from  German  models  and  improved  upon 
from  our  own  experience. 

Suppose  some  one  had  the  power  to  plant  Dart 
mouth  and  Williams,  Amherst  and  Bowdoin,  and 
Brown  and  Smith  in  one  neighborhood,  retain 
ing  for  each  its  separate  organization,  its  individ 
ual  merits  and  inspiring  history,  and  to  build  on 
them  the  University  of  New  England.  Who  does 
not  perceive  that  here  would  be  an  atmosphere  of 
learning,  an  emulation  and  inspiration  for  the  best 
work,  an  authority,  a  dignity,  a  promise,  and  po 
tency  such  as  the  New  World  has  never  yet  seen 
in  the  educational  field  ?  Of  course  it  is  wildly  im 
possible.  But  in  dealing  with  younger  institutions, 
or  in  establishing  new  ones  with  the  colossal  pe 
cuniary  power  some  educational  benefactors  now 
wield,  such  a  system  could  be  begun.  In  that  direc 
tion  might  be  found  a  realization  of  the  higher 
aims  that  have  been  indicated.  In  such  a  group  of 

C   251    3 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

colleges,  none  need  be  so  overgrown  as  to  make 
individual  contact  between  the  pupil  and  the  pro 
fessor  impossible;  or  if  one  is,  a  smaller  one,  be 
side  it,  will  have  the  same  atmosphere  and  the 
same  university  control  and  advantages.  None  need 
dilute  its  course  by  "  electives"  which  belong  in  the 
university,  or  lower  its  course  to  accommodate  the 
haste  of  those  who  must  begin  life  early.  From 
such  a  group  of  colleges  the  true  university  would 
rise  naturally,  broad-based  and  spreading  at  will 
in  every  direction  to  which  the  trained  mind,  now 
competent  to  choose  for  itself,  would  seek  to  extend 
its  studies.  But  the  more  stimulating  atmosphere 
and  the  more  strictly  collegiate  training  would 
alike  insure  the  direction  of  larger  numbers  to 
the  fields  of  languages,  history,  philosophy,  math 
ematics,  and  pure  science,  which  give  the  train 
ing  more  needful  and  more  useful  for  a  republic 
than  anywhere  else,  and  which  properly  rank  first 
in  an  institution  of  the  highest  learning  that  aims 
to  cover  all  the  great  departments  of  intellectual 
life.  The  opportunity  for  differentiation  and  special 
ization  in  educational  effort  would  be  greater  than 
ever,  but  it  would  be  put  where  it  belongs,  not  with 
the  youth  in  his  plastic,  uncertain,  formative  period, 
but  with  the  trained  young  man,  competent  to 
select  and  eager  to  pursue.  Thus  when  the  grad 
uate  passed  from  the  college,  whether  he  devoted 
himself  chiefly  to  the  highest  learning  or  sought 
at  once  an  education  in  applied  science  or  in  a  pro 
fession,  he  would,  at  any  rate,  carry  into  the  uni- 

C  252  ] 


IN  AMERICA 

versity  a  mind  fit  for  the  work  it  demands.  To  bor 
row  the  happy  illustration  of  President  Stryker  of 
Hamilton,  the  college  would  have  made  the  intel 
lectual  iron  that  came  to  it  into  steel;  and  there 
fore  the  university  would  not  be  wasting  its  time 
in  trying  to  put  a  fine  edge  upon  pot-metal. 

Perhaps  it  is  a  fanciful  idea  that  we  shall  ever 
group  colleges  anywhere  in  a  great  university  in 
America,  as  circumstances  that  can  never  be  re 
produced  did  group  them,  six  or  seven  centuries 
ago,  on  the  banks  of  the  Cam  and  the  Isis.  We 
have  gone  far,  with  good  results,  on  another  road. 
The  old  universities  sprang  from  a  desire  for  a 
wider  learning  than  the  schools  of  the  cathedrals 
and  monks  would  furnish.  So  the  American  uni 
versity  of  to-day  sprang  from  a  need  for  a  wider 
and  more  practical  learning  than  those  English 
and  Continental  models  furnished ;  and  we  can  no 
more  afford  to  lose  this  widening  and  extension 
than  we  can  afford  to  go  back  to  the  schools  of  the 
cathedrals.  But  the  universities  that  sprang  up  in 
the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  held  on  to 
the  best  in  the  schools  they  replaced.  Now  that  we 
have  the  leisure  and  the  opportunities  which  great 
growth  and  great  prosperity  confer,  it  should  be 
our  instinct  to  hold  on  to  the  best  in  the  university 
system  which  we  replaced  with  our  own  a  hundred 
years  ago.  Whether  the  exact  organization  can  be 
reproduced  or  not,  the  essentials  are  surely  within 
reach. 

First,  the  university  atmosphere,  which  can  be 

253 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES 

obtained  only  by  the  flocking  of  teachers  and  pupils 
to  a  great  educational  centre. 

Secondly,  the  individual  influence  of  the  teacher 
upon  the  pupil,  especially  throughout  the  collegi 
ate  course,  which  can  best  be  attained  in  colleges 
of  moderate  size,  under  the  university,  by  methods 
of  instruction  less  formal  and  more  vitalizing  to 
the  immature  mind  than  merely  by  lectures  and 
written  examinations,  and  by  the  more  intimate 
association,  in  commons  and  elsewhere,  between 
professors  and  students. 

Thirdly,  the  old  college  course  as  the  best  train 
ing  for  the  new  university  work, — the  humanities, 
to  recur  to  the  finely  descriptive  phrase  by  which 
our  fathers  designated  a  thorough  education  in 
the  classics  (to  which  we  would  gladly  add  also 
modern  languages),  and  philosophy;  next,  pure 
mathematics,  and  next,  science. 

This  ideal  college  course  once  mastered,  the  pot- 
metal  has  been  made  steel,  fit  for  the  miracle- 
working  uses  to  which  the  university  then  really 
opens  the  door.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  is  the  time 
for  the  man  in  a  hurry,  who  nevertheless  wants  a 
genuine  liberal  education,  to  consider  how  much 
farther  and  whither  he  will  go.  Then,  and  not  till 
then,  with  disciplined  mind  and  enlarged  vision, 
he  is  competent  to  make  his  own  choice  from  the 
"electives,"  decide  in  what  direction  his  life  is  to 
turn,  and  what  further  learning  he  will  find  of  the 
most  worth  for  his  aim,  whether  that  be  profit, 
or  the  service  of  his  fellow  men  in  politics  or  else- 

254 


IN  AMERICA 

where,  or  merely  pure  intellectual  enjoyment. 
This  collegiate  course  was  the  best  basis  for  the 
higher  learning  the  best  systems  of  the  eighteenth 
and  nineteenth  centuries  had  to  offer.  It  is  the  best 
basis  still,  as  we  turn  to  the  wider  and  better  at 
tainments  the  twentieth  century  has  to  offer.  It  has 
formed  for  generations  of  our  race  the  badge  of 
the  best  title  any  of  the  race  has  ever  worn  in  any 
land,  or  can  wear, — the  proud  title  of  scholar  and 
gentleman. 

It  is  to  the  high  duty  of  perpetuating  and  enlarg 
ing  that  exalted  type  we  have  the  right  to  summon 
our  institutions  of  the  most  advanced  learning.  We 
demand  from  them  the  combination  of  exact  know 
ledge  and  ripe  reflection  that  makes  the  scholar; 
the  combination  of  right  thinking  and  right  liv 
ing  that  makes  the  gentleman.  There  we  have  the 
greatest  possibility  of  our  colleges  and  universities, 
the  consummate  flower  of  our  educational  system, 
the  inspiration  and  guide  of  progress,  the  safe 
guard  of  society,  the  ornament  and  defence  of  the 
Republic. 

We  have  lately  seen  the  close  of  a  century  which 
in  the  splendor  of  its  discoveries  and  the  rapid 
ity  of  its  progress  surpassed  all  that  went  before 
it.  We  stand  at  the  dawn  of  a  century  that  is  to 
surpass  it  still  more.  The  Republic  closed  the  old 
century  with  a  continental  population  of  not  far 
from  eighty  millions,  and  perhaps  fifteen  or  six 
teen  millions  more  in  its  dependencies.  The  new 
century,  before  its  close,  may  see  that  population, 

C  255  ] 


UNIVERSITY  TENDENCIES  IN  AMERICA 

even  if  the  ratio  of  increase  be  reduced  to  a  third 
or  fourth  of  the  present  average,  rising  to  the  al 
most  incomprehensible  number  of  three  hundred 
millions.  The  Republic  enters  this  new  century 
with  the  control  of  the  continent  of  the  future,  of 
the  ocean  of  the  future,  and  of  the  two  richest 
archipelagoes  of  the  world.  It  will  pass  no  self- 
denying  ordinance  against  growth.  It  faces  the 
dazzling  prospect  with  undazzled  eyes,  and  scorns 
to  shrink  back  from  greatness  through  craven 
fear  of  being  great.  From  insignificant  beginnings 
it  moved  to  the  head  of  the  material  progress  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  The  field  of  the  American 
universities  is  not  merely  material,  but  intellectual 
and  moral.  It  is  their  task  in  the  twentieth  century 
to  see  to  it  that  this  Republic  of  our  love  and  pride, 
whose  world-wide  extent  and  illimitable  opportu 
nities  thus  confuse  the  understanding  and  bewilder 
the  imagination,  shall  respond  not  unworthily  to 
the  wider  duties  of  its  fortune,  shall  rise  to  pre 
eminence  in  more  than  material  progress,  and 
march  at  the  head  of  the  culminating  civilization 
of  the  world. 


C   256 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

FROM  the  English  came  our  first  educational 
ideas;  to  them  we  long  looked,  in  colonial 
days  and  later,  for  the  highest  types  of  collegiate 
and  university  education;  from  them  we  got  the 
religious  control  so  long  felt  in  so  many  of  our 
schools,  as  it  is  still  felt  in  theirs.  More  important 
still,  from  them  came  the  fervid,  almost  fanatical 
belief  in  the  necessity  of  education,  which  we,  in 
accordance  with  our  custom,  broadened  far  be 
yond  their  original  view,  and  have  clung  to  through 
two  centuries,  and  over  a  continent  and  many 
islands,  with  a  tenacity  which,  if  it  were  not 
American,  might  be  called  truly  British.  Plainly, 
the  educational  fever  runs  in  the  blood ! 

I  shall  treat,  then,  briefly,  of  some  details  of 
past  and  present  English  educational  work.  But  I 
shall  do  no  violence  to  the  maxims  either  of  Dog 
berry  or  Don  Quixote ;  shall  enter  upon  no  com 
parison  with  our  own  work  in  similar  fields.  There 
are  two  reasons.  First,  all  comparisons  between 
countries  are  apt  to  be  odious.  Secondly,  unless  far 
more  time  were  taken  than  is  at  our  disposal  for 
a  careful  statement  of  varying  circumstances,  all 
comparisons  are  sure  to  be  unfair. 

In  any  consideration  of  English  education  for 
the  masses,  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  national 
system  for  it  did  not  exist  before  1870,  and  could 
not  be  said  to  have  reached  good  working  order 
before  1892.  The  government  gave  no  assistance 

C   259  J 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

whatever  for  elementary  schools  (z.£.,for  what  we 
should  call  common  schools,  or  primary  schools ) 
until  1834,  when  the  House  of  Commons  made  its 
first  appropriation  of  =£20,000.  This  was  to  be 
used  solely  for  new  school  buildings.  Not  till  1839 
did  the  government  make  an  appropriation  for 
more  direct  aid  to  popular  education. 

Yet  meantime  England  had  somehow  trained 
Shakespeare  and  John  Milton.  She  had  also  trained 
the  Pilgrims,  who  began  in  the  Colony  of  Massa 
chusetts  Bay  that  common  school  system  which  is 
now  the  pride  of  every  American. 

Until  William  E.  Forster  in  1870  carried  through 
the  bill  to  provide  for  public  elementary  education 
in  England  and  Wales,  the  government  itself  could 
hardly  be  said  to  have  taken  much  share  in  real 
educational  provision  for  the  poorer  classes,  and 
not  a  great  deal  even  for  the  middle  classes.  Nev 
ertheless,  such  as  their  system  was,  and  for  what 
it  undertook,  it  had  long  been  of  rare  excellence. 
It  had  admirably  accomplished — for  a  certain  num 
ber — the  highest  aim  of  education;  it  had  been  a 
wonderful  developer  of  character.  Public  schools, 
Eton  and  Harrow,  Winchester  and  Rugby,  and 
many  another  leading  up  to  and  cooperating  with 
the  two  universities,  had  been  such  a  nursery  of 
statesmen,  of  soldiers  and  sailors  and  great  pro 
consuls  and  civil  administrators  throughout  the 
Empire  on  which  the  sun  never  sets,  as  the  world 
had  never  before  seen.  It  may  have  been  a  fanciful 
notion,  attributed  to  the  Iron  Duke,  that  Waterloo 

[  260  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

was  won  at  Eton, but  certainly  the  secret  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  superiority  in  the  seventeenth  and  eight 
eenth  centuries  was  largely  to  be  found  in  the  Brit 
ish  schools  and  universities. 

The  secret  of  some  other  things  was  to  be  found 
in  the  chaotic  and  undeveloped  state  of  popular 
elementary  education.  The  long  reign  of  Queen 
Victoria  had  but  recently  begun,  when  in  Febru 
ary,  1839,  Lord  John  Russell  wrote  to  the  Lord 
Lansdowneof  the  day:  "I  have  received  Her  Maj 
esty's  commands  to  make  a  communication  to 
Your  Lordship  on  a  subject  of  the  greatest  impor 
tance.  Her  Majesty  has  observed  with  deep  con 
cern  the  want  of  instruction  \vhich  is  still  observ 
able  among  the  poorer  classes  of  her  subjects.  All 
the  inquiries  which  have  been  made  show  a  defi 
ciency  in  the  general  education  of  the  people, 
which  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  a 
civilized  and  Christian  nation /'Continuing  to  speak 
for  Her  Majesty,  Lord  John  went  on  to  specify  a 
lack  of  qualified  teachers,  imperfect  teaching,  de 
ficient  inspection  of  the  work  done  by  the  schools 
of  both  the  Established  Church  and  the  Non-Con 
formists,  and  finally  the  neglect  of  the  subject  by 
Parliament. 

Four  years  later,  inspectors  reported  that  the 
teaching  in  these  schools  was  so  bad  that  only  half 
the  scholars  learned  to  read  and  only  a  quarter 
of  them  to  write.  And  four  years  after  that,  now 
almost  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
Macaulay,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Commons, 

C  261  3 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

gave  the  reason:  "  How  many  of  these  teachers/' 
he  said,  "are  the  refuse  of  other  callings, — dis 
carded  servants,  or  ruined  tradesmen,  who  can 
not  do  a  sum  of  three ;  who  would  not  be  able  to 
write  a  common  letter ;  who  do  not  know  whether 
the  earth  is  a  cube  or  a  sphere,  and  cannot  tell 
whether  Jerusalem  is  in  Asia  or  America ;  whom 
no  gentleman  wrould  trust  with  the  key  of  his 
cellar,  and  no  tradesman  would  send  of  a  mes 
sage/' 

Even  as  late  as  1861,  about  the  time  our  Civil 
War  broke  out,  the  Newcastle  Commission  re 
ported  almost  as  unsatisfactory  a  state  of  affairs. 
It  considered  that  only  about  one-fourth  of  the 
children  in  the  schools  got  a  tolerable  facility  in 
reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic — the  great  ma 
jority  leaving  school  between  the  ages  of  ten  and 
eleven.  It  told  of  a  public  school  with  such  prim 
itive  facilities  that,  when  the  writing  lesson  was 
given,  four  boys  were  required  to  carry  ink  bot 
tles  up  and  down  between  the  desks,  so  that  each 
boy  in  turn  might  dip  his  pen  in  the  ink.  And  finally 
this  commission  said  concerning  the  private  school 
teachers  in  one  part  of  London:  "None  are  too 
old,  too  poor,  too  ignorant,  too  feeble,  too  Sickly, 
too  unqualified  to  regard  themselves  and  to  be 
regarded  as  fit  for  school-keeping.  Domestic  ser 
vants  out  of  place,  discharged  barmaids,  vend 
ors  of  toys  and  lollypops,  keepers  of  small  eat 
ing-houses,  of  mangles  or  small  lodging-houses, 
needlewomen  who  take  in  plain  or  slop  work, 

262 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

milliners,  consumptive  patients  in  an  advanced 
stage,  cripples  almost  bedridden,  persons  of  at  least 
doubtful  temperance,  outdoor  paupers,  men  and 
women  of  seventy  or  eighty  years  of  age,  persons 
who  spell  badly,  who  scarcely  write,  and  who  can 
not  cipher  at  all, — such  are  some  of  the  teachers, 
not  in  remote  rural  districts  but  in  the  heart  of 
London."  In  recalling  this  and  other  accounts 
of  the  time,  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  in  all 
countries  reformers  have  sharp  voices  and  use 
many  staccato  notes. 

But  Matthew  Arnold  was  not  of  that  class ;  yet 
he  reported  in  1869  that  nearly  half  the  children 
he  examined  had  been  less  than  one  year  at  school, 
and  half  the  rest  for  less  than  two  years. 

Now,  to  end  this  statement  of  earlier  conditions, 
which  has  been  really  necessary  to  a  comprehen 
sion  of  the  present  situation,  it  should  be  added 
that  the  schools  thus  described  might  be  either 
purely  private  enterprises,  sometimes  aided  a  little 
by  local  taxation,  or  might  be  under  the  manage 
ment  either  of  the  Established  Church  of  England, 
or  of  the  British  and  Foreign  School  Society,  repre 
senting  the  bulk  of  the  Non -Conformist  churches, 
or  of  sundry  minor  religious  organizations.  By  far 
the  greater  number  were  under  some  distinct  and 
positive  sectarian  control.  Great  sums  had  been 
invested  by  the  different  denominations  in  school 
buildings  and  in  supporting  schools,  when  there 
was  little  other  support  for  them.  Their  work  had 

[  263  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

come  gradually  to  be  supplemented  not  only  by 
fees,  but  by  allowances  from  the  local  taxation,  and 
finally  from  the  government.  Thus  the  churches 
controlled  the  schools:  the  local  taxpayers  had 
a  pecuniary  interest  in  them,  the  parents  who 
paid  fees  had,  and  finally  the  general  government 
had. 

As  would  be  naturally  inferred,  the  churches 
that  built  them  up  insisted  on  religious  teaching. 
In  the  case  of  the  Established  Church  this  meant 
the  Bible,  church  hymns,  the  church  catechism, and 
particularly  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  and  at  first 
pupils  coming  into  such  a  school  from  Non-Con 
formist  families,  from  Agnostic  or  Jewish  families, 
or  from  aggressive  unbelievers,  had  to  receive  the 
same  instruction.  Here,  of  course,  was  one  opening 
for  trouble ;  and  another  was  to  be  found  among 
local  taxpayers,  not  connected  with  the  Church  of 
England,  or  perhaps  with  any  church.  With  Non- 
Conformist  schools  the  difficulty  was  somewhat 
different.  They  were  disposed  to  be  content  with 
what  was  known  as  Cowper-Temple  teaching ;/>., 
as  legally  defined  in  the  Act  of  1 870,  without "  re 
ligious  catechism  or  religious  formulary,  distinctive 
of  any  particular  denomination/'  Subject  to  that 
restriction,  whatever  religious  instruction  the  local 
authorities  desired  could  be  given.  This  Cowper- 
Temple  teaching,  though  apt  to  be  satisfactory  to 
the  majority  of  Non-Conformists,  did  not  satisfy 
the  Established  Church,  or  the  unbelievers,  and 
might  not  always  satisfy  the  local  taxpayers.  As 

C   264  J 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  evoked  little  protest, 
excepting  from  the  Established  Church. 

Now,  it  is  easy  for  an  American  to  say  that  all 
this  confusion  and  dissatisfaction  could  be  avoided 
by  confining  the  public  schools  to  secular  instruc 
tion,  and  leaving  religious  training  to  the  church 
and  the  family.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to  show  how 
vested  rights,  going  back  often  for  a  century  or 
more,  can  thus  be  preserved ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  show 
how  the  churches,  which  invested  and  were  en 
couraged  to  invest  their  money  and  labors  for  one 
purpose,  are  to  be  reconciled  to  the  arbitrary  diver 
sion  of  their  investment,  long  afterward,  to  an 
other  purpose.  Between  1 869  and  1 876,  houses  for 
over  a  million  school-children  were  erected  by  de 
nominational  agencies,  and  the  total  of  voluntary 
subscriptions  for  that  purpose  in  that  time  was  over 
,£3,000,000.  Besides  the  claim  in  equity  which  on 
the  basis  of  such  facts  the  churches  assert,  it  is  prob 
ably  true  that  the  majority  of  the  English  people, 
however  much  they  may  differ  as  to  details,  and 
to  whatever  rival  sects  they  belong,  would  be  still 
more  discontented  if  all  religious  teaching  were  to 
disappear  from  their  schools.  There  is  increasing 
impatience,  no  doubt,  with  the  conflicting  demands 
and  disputes  of  the  churches,  a  growing  tendency 
to  say  "a  plague  on  both  your  houses;  let  the  tax- 
paid  education  be  purely  secular!"  But  in  spite  of 
such  outbursts,  I  believe  the  decided  majority  of 
the  taxpayers  still  think  religious  instruction  a  ne 
cessity  for  the  rising  generation,  and  do  not  think 

n 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

they  would  have  adequate  security  for  getting  it,  if 
it  were  excluded  from  the  tax-supported  schools. 
Until  1870  the  daily  reading  of  the  Bible  was  an 
essential  condition  of  getting  any  government  aid 
for  an  elementary  school,  and  it  is  still  habitually 
read  in  most  of  the  schools,  even  where  not  re 
quired  by  any  authority. 

The  leading  English  lines  of  thought  on  the  sub 
ject  finally  found  expression  in  two  organizations 
which  have  contended  for  many  years.  The  Bir 
mingham  League  advocated  a  national  system  of 
education,  to  be  compulsory  on  all,  free  to  all,  and 
unsectarian,  but  not  to  exclude  undenominational 
religious  instruction.The  National  Education  Union 
represented  the  Established  Church,  and  was  or 
ganized  to  oppose  the  efforts  of  the  Birmingham 
Union,  and  to  hold  on  to  the  church  hymns  and  the 
church  catechism.  Untiringly  the  contest  rages.  A 
most  hotly  fought  measure  was  Mr.  BirrelFs  bill 
(passed  after  long  debate  in  the  Commons  and 
thrown  out  by  the  Lords ) ,  which  attempted  a  con 
siderable  advance  toward  the  ideals  of  the  Birming 
ham  League.  The  way  in  which  the  other  side  re 
garded  it  was  hinted  in  the  epithet  by  which  many 
of  the  London  newspapers  had  the  habit  of  describ 
ing  it — Bir-religion. 

During  the  popular  debates  over  this  measure,!  re 
ceived  a  letter  from  the  editor  of  "The  Salisbury 
Times/'  besides  several  from  private  sources,  all 
calling  my  attention  to  a  startling  statement  made 

[  266  3 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

in  a  speech  on  the  subject  at  a  political  meeting  in 
Salisbury  by  a  well-known  and  perfectly  reputable 
Conservative  candidate,  to  this  effect: 

''In  Australia,  since  religious  teaching  was  abolished  in 
the  day  schools,  crime  has  increased  75  per  cent.  In  the 
United  States  in  1850  there  was  one  crime  to  every  3422 
of  the  population,  but  to-day  there  is  one  criminal  for 
every  300.  In  Denver,  out  of  10,000  boys,  2000  of  them 
have  been  in  jail.  Now,  we  do  not  want  the  same  thing  to 
happen  in  Great  Britain." 

I  was  asked  if  these  statements  were  not  mislead 
ing,  and  I  prepared  such  a  reply  as  careful  inquiry 
seemed  to  show  that  the  facts  warranted.1  But  there 
was  at  the  moment  no  such  storm  centre  in  British 
politics  as  this  religious  phase  of  the  educational 
question;  and  on  second  thoughts  it  appeared  wiser 
for  a  diplomat  to  obey  the  old  rule  to  avoid  get 
ting  in  any  way  involved  in  the  domestic  debates  of 
the  country  to  which  he  was  accredited — even  if  it 
should  be  at  the  temporary  cost  of  not  promptly  cor 
recting  misapprehensions  about  his  own  country. 

Now,  it  would  have  been  easy,  first,  to  call  at 
tention  to  the  curious  fact  that  the  statements  were 
strikingly  like  some  unwise  stories  published  from 
time  to  time,  some  only  a  few  years  earlier,  in 
American  reviews  of  high  standing,  concerning 
an  alleged  increase  of  juvenile  crime  in  London, 

1  Valuable  aid  in  securing  the  facts  was  kindly  furnished  by  Dr.  Draper, 
the  New  York  Commissioner  of  Education,  by  Mr.  Eugene  A.  Philbin,  of 
the  Board  of  Regents,  and  by  Professor  Elmer  E.  Brown,  National  Com 
missioner  of  Education.  The  reports  of  his  predecessor,  Dr.  W.  T.  Harris, 
also  shed  much  light  on  the  subject. 

L 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

following  the  extension  there  of  the  free  school 
system.  Next,  as  to  the  allegations  concerning  the 
United  States,  it  might  have  been  said  at  once 
that  they  were  inexact,  and  that,  even  if  they  had 
been  accurate,  they  would  have  needed  to  be  made 
more  complete  to  avoid  giving  an  inaccurate  im 
pression. 

They  were  inexact  because  the  latest  census 
statistics  available,  those  furnished  by  the  Census 
Office  in  1904,  show  that  instead  of  one  criminal  to 
every  300  of  population,  there  is  only  one  to  every 
990;  also  that  there  has  been  a  reduction  between 
1890  and  1904,  not  merely  in  the  proportion  of 
criminals  to  total  population,  but  also  in  the  actual 
number  of  criminals,  in  spite  of  the  increase  of 
population ;  and  finally,  that  the  Census  Office  be 
lieves  that  its  own  returns  of  criminals  before  1880 
were  imperfect,  making  the  number  previous  to 
that  date  too  small,  and  consequently  exaggerat 
ing  the  increase  in  the  next  decades. 

Next,  even  if  these  allegations  had  been  exact, 
they  would  still  have  given  an  inaccurate  impres 
sion  anyway.  It  is  obviously  misleading  to  point  to 
the  number  of  criminals  and  say  that  is  the  work  of 
our  educational  system,  without  showing  whether 
these  criminals  have  ever  been  under  the  system. 
Plainly  you  must  know  what  proportion  of  the 
whole  population  has  not  been  taught  at  all  in  our 
schools,  and  next  what  proportion  of  the  criminals 
that  illiterate  part  furnishes.  Thus,  in  the  largest 
states,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  the  wholly 

[  268  3 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

illiterate  are  only  4  per  cent  of  the  population,  yet 
they  furnish  33  per  cent  of  the  prisoners.  If  you 
add  to  the  wholly  illiterate  in  those  states  the  oth 
ers  enumerated  as  very  deficient,  you  find  that  the 
two  classes  furnish  60  per  cent  of  the  prisoners. 

Again,  it  is  obviously  misleading  to  use  statistics 
of  crime  as  evidence  of  a  bad  effect  of  the  educa 
tional  system,  without  mentioning  that,  while  the 
educational  system  has  been  steadily  extending, 
the  number  of  criminals  in  the  same  period  has 
been  shrinking — having  been  in  the  whole  United 
States  132  to  the  100,000  of  population  in  1890, 
and  only  101  in  1894. 

And  again,  it  is  obviously  misleading  to  hold 
the  educational  system  responsible  for  an  increase 
of  prisoners  clearly  caused  by  changes  in  the  laws. 
Thus,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  in  a  period 
of  thirty-five  years  (between  1850  and  1885), 
commitments  by  the  courts  increased,  yet  crimes 
against  persons  and  property  rapidly  decreased, 
and  all  crimes  excepting  intemperance  decreased. 
Now,  more  rigid  laws  against  drunkenness  and 
the  more  frequent  arrests  that  followed  can  hardly 
with  fairness  be  charged  to  the  growth  of  the 
educational  system! 

As  to  the  Denver  case  I  know  less,  but  from 
the  report  of  the  Juvenile  Court  of  Denver  for  1904 
it  appears,  not  that  one  boy  in  five  was  sent  to 
jail  each  year,  but  that  in  the  six  years  previous 
to  the  establishment  of  the  court,  about  one  boy  in 
seven  out  of  the  total  population  of  boys  between 

269  l 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

ten  and  sixteen  years  of  age  had  been,  as  the  court 
said,  under  the  old  system  "  thrust  into  jail."  In  the 
two  years  after  the  establishment  of  the  court,  it 
tried  but  seven  hundred  and  nineteen  cases  and 
committed  only  forty-four. 

Whether  religious  instruction  should  be  en 
forced  upon  everybody  in  English  schools  is  purely 
a  question  for  English  people.  We  have  no  right 
and  no  disposition  to  meddle  with  it ;  and  I  ven 
ture  to  think  the  facts  just  cited  prove  that  there 
is  nothing  in  either  our  educational  or  our  crim 
inal  record  to  make  it  needful  for  any  of  them  to 
import  us  into  it. 

And  yet  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  on  the  general 
subject  we  might  profitably  take  a  hint  from  the 
old  country.  Whatever  else  we  may  say  about  the 
English  schools,  they  do  turn  out  well-behaved, 
orderly  boys  and  girls,  respectful  to  those  set  over 
them,  grounded  in  the  morals  of  Christian  civil 
ization,  with  an  instinctive  sense  of  obedience  to 
law  and  a  becoming  regard  for  the  authorities  that 
represent  it.  Would  we  be  any  the  worse  off  if 
we  had  more  of  these  qualities  here?  May  it  not 
happen  that  in  our  effort  to  keep  all  questions  of 
religion  and  morals  in  what  we  consider  their 
proper  place,  they  may  in  reality  be  left  without 
any  place  in  the  training  of  a  good  many  children  ? 
If  the  interest  of  the  Republic  requires  that  every 
child  should  be  compelled  to  learn  to  read  its  laws, 
does  not  the  same  interest  as  imperatively  require 

[  270  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

that  every  child  should  be  taught,  and  should  be 
unable  to  escape  being  taught,  the  absolute  neces 
sity  of  respect  for  those  laws  and  of  prompt  and 
dutiful  obedience  to  the  officers  of  the  law?  Does 
not  the  interest  of  the  Republic  further  demand 
that  the  coming  citizens  shall  have  some  idea  of 
our  old  beliefs  in  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man,  or  at  least  shall  be  thor 
oughly  grounded  in  the  great  principles  of  the 
moral  law,  without  which  neither  ordered  liberty 
nor  civilization  itself  can  exist? 

If  English  schools,  according  to  our  ideas,  go 
too  far  in  teaching  creeds,  may  we  not  be  going 
too  far  the  other  way,  in  some  parts  of  the  coun 
try  at  least,  in  excluding  altogether,  or  in  giving 
too  little  space  to  teaching  unsectarian  religion  and 
morals,  to  enforcing  respect  for  authority,  and  to 
training  the  habit  of  mind  that  secures  unhesitat 
ing  obedience  to  law,  and  to  its  officers?  In  Lon 
don  the  policeman,  the  representative  of  law, often 
controls  the  biggest  and  angriest  crowd  by  lifting 
his  hand,  in  cases  where  the  New  York  policeman 
has  to  lift  his  club.  Nay,  here  the  giddy  chauffeur, 
for  a  single  example  out  of  many,  gayly  snaps  his 
fingers  at  the  uplifted  club,  and  has  to  be  run  down 
on  a  motorcycle.  Even  then,  when  caught,  he  is 
apt  to  tell  the  presumptuous  policeman  he  means 
to  have  him  "broken"  for  his  pains.  Such  a  threat 
in  London  would  railroad  him  to  a  long  term  in 
jail.  The  mere  failure  to  stop,  the  moment  a  police 
man  lifts  his  hand,  is  generally  in  England  un- 

c  271  n 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

thinkable;  the  imagination  is  staggered  to  con 
ceive  the  punishment  that  might  befall  the  fool 
hardy  person  who  should  venture  on  such  unpre 
cedented  lawlessness.  Some  cause  has  produced 
this  difference.  Is  it  improbable  that  early  train 
ing  in  a  school  that  could  be  nowise  escaped  by 
the  growing  boy  had  something  to  do  with  it? 

It  has  been  seen  that  even  yet,  to  use  a  Hiber- 
nicism,  the  English  system  of  elementary  educa 
tion  is  notably  unsystematic.  Besides  purely  private 
schools,  sometimes  receiving  government  aid,  and 
some  old  public  schools  having  endowments  run 
ning  back  for  a  century  or  more  and  also  receiv 
ing  government  aid, there  are  "  provided  schools," 
i.e.,  council  schools,  or,  in  American  parlance,  com 
mon  schools;  and  "non-provided  schools,"  that  is, 
voluntary  schools,  largely  under  church  control. 
The  two  classes  last  named  had  accommodation  in 
1906  for  about  three  and  one-half  million  scholars 
each.  Both  receive  aid  from  local  taxation  and  also 
from  the  state.  They  had  between  them  an  aver 
age  attendance  in  that  year  of  five  and  one-fourth 
millions,  or  over  86  per  cent  of  the  registration. 
To  support  the  work  of  elementary  education 
thus  distributed,  aside  from  other  resources,  there 
were  public  grants  of  nearly  eleven  and  one-half 
million  pounds — say  fifty-seven  million  dollars. 

To  indicate  the  nature  of  instruction  thus  given 
we  may  take  the  London  "provided  schools"  as 
favorable  examples.  The  curriculum,  as  first  fixed 

[  272  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

by  the  board  in  1 8 70, included  instruction  in  moral 
ity  and  religion,  reading,  writing,  arithmetic,  geog 
raphy,  English  grammar,  English  history,  elemen 
tary  physical  science,  elementary  social  economy, 
drawing,  singing,  mensuration  for  boys,  needle 
work  for  girls,  and  physical  exercises,  besides  a 
few  discretionary  subjects.  By  1902  the  latter  had 
been  materially  enlarged,  and  the  head  teacher  now 
had  the  liberty  of  selecting,  according  to  the  capa 
city  and  desire  of  the  pupils,  from  algebra,  geom 
etry,  mechanics,  animal  physiology,  botany,  chem 
istry,  hygiene,  bookkeeping,  shorthand,  Latin, 
French,  and  German.  Nearly  all  upper  class  boys 
also  attend  special  centres  for  manual  training,  and 
upper  class  girls  for  domestic  economy. 

American  critics  of  tendencies  in  their  own 
schools  sometimes  object  to  the  "fads  and  frills" 
which,  as  they  say,  keep  the  children  from  learn 
ing  "the  three  R's."  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
London  elementary  schools  likewise  provide  for  a 
good  many  so  called  "frills/'  But  it  must  be  noted 
that  these  are  not  permitted  to  take  the  place  of 
the  essentials.  Whatever  else  a  London  child  may 
learn  at  a  "provided  school,"  he  must  and  does 
learn  to  read,  write,  and  cipher.  Two  out  of  the 
three  at  least  he  generally  learns  remarkably  well. 
Nothing  is  apt  to  strike  an  American  more,  when  he 
comes  to  know  the  product  of  English  elementary 
schools,  than  their  thoroughness  in  these  essentials. 
I  have  rarely  seen  a  domestic  servant  who  did  not 
have  a  fairly  good  handwriting,  spell  with  more 

C 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

accuracy  than  some  of  our  own  misguided  col 
lege  professors,  and  compose  a  clear  letter,  well 
expressed,  in  civil  phrases,  not  offensive  by  an 
unwarranted  familiarity  or  wanton  assurance  in 
demanding  the  time  of  a  stranger,  not  verbose  or 
slangy ;  in  fact,  likely,  by  its  appearance  and  man 
ner  at  least,  to  create  a  good  impression.  Would 
that  we  could  say  as  much  for  all  the  graduates  of 
our  colleges. 

In  most  of  the  London  schools  there  are  three 
departments,  those  for  boys,  girls,  and  infants.  An 
average  number  for  the  three  would  be  about 
one  thousand.  There  are  also  schools  in  which  the 
sexes  are  not  separated.  About  half  the  teachers 
in  1869  were  women  and  girls,  by  1900  they  had 
become  three-fourths.  Certified  masters  of  schools 
are  paid  about  £\  29  per  annum, say  $640 ;  and  cer 
tified  mistresses  about  two-thirds  as  much.  Pupil 
teachers  are  put  in  training,  on  application  and  fa 
vorable  reports,  at  fourteen  years  of  age ;  and  after 
a  year,  study  only  half  the  day,  teach  the  other 
half,  and  are  paid  a  graded  salary  which,  at  the 
end  of  three  years  more,  rises  to  £30  for  boys  and 
,£24  for  girls.  Women  are  eligible  for  educational 
committees,  and  their  service  seems  to  be  popular. 

The  general  limit  for  compulsory  attendance  at 
elementary  schools  was  thirteen  years, but  the  local 
authorities  now  have  the  power  to  raise  it  to  four 
teen,  and  the  prevailing  tendency  is  toward  an 
exercise  of  this  power.  The  penalty  on  parents  for 
neglect  is  £i  with  costs.  The  pupils  are  graded  by 

C  274  3 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

various  standards,  known  as  standard  i,  the  low 
est,  and  so  on  up  to  standards  5  and  6,  which  rep 
resent  the  highest  elementary  work,  and  standard 
7,  which  denotes  the  distinct  extension  of  the  work 
into  the  secondary  field. 

Discipline  in  the  schools  is  generally  very  well 
maintained ;  pupils  of  both  sexes  are  early  taught 
obedience,  courtesy,  and  respect — sometimes  even 
yet  in  the  old  way !  Persuasion  and  kindness  are 
first  tried ;  the  effort  is  to  lead  the  pupil  by  rewards 
rather  than  to  drive  him  by  punishments.  But  the 
hard-headed  local  authorities  have  generally  not 
the  remotest  intention  of  spoiling  the  child  in  order 
to  spare  the  rod,  and  the  traditional  cane  is  still 
served  out  to  the  head-masters  and  the  head-mis 
tresses  along  with  the  other  school  supplies.  It  is 
not  often  used,  and  never  without  care  and  some 
thought  of  possible  legal  reprisals,  but  it  is  there, 
and  it  is  used  if  needs  must.  Perhaps  the  lad's  opin 
ion  of  Archbishop  Temple,  at  Rugby,  may  be  taken 
as  the  ordinary  schoolboy's  general  notion  about 
this  application  of  discipline,  when  it  does  come: 
"He's  a  beast,  but  a  just  beast." 

There  is  a  marked  tendency  in  most  of  the  ele 
mentary  schools  to  freshen  the  work,  take  it  away 
from  the  old  routine  methods,  and  make  it  a  real 
process  of  drawing  out  the  latent  capacities  of  the 
child  and  encouraging  it  to  think,  to  feel  its  own 
way,  and  to  learn  for  itself.  There  are  many  illus 
trations  and  experiments,  occasional  excursions 
and  object  lessons.  Efforts  are  made  to  use  the 

C 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

successes  of  pupils  as  an  abiding  stimulus  for  the 
schools,  and  the  permanent  tablet  on  the  wall  serv 
ing  as  an  "  honor  board  "  is  a  frequent  feature.  The 
local  authorities  sometimes  offer  a  valuable  picture 
as  a  prize  to  a  class  or  a  school  that  in  some  way 
distinguishes  itself,  and  with  a  thrift  almost  Yankee 
in  its  subtlety  gain  by  what  they  give,  since  the 
picture  remains  as  the  permanent  adornment  of  the 
schoolhouse ! 

In  1861  Matthew  Arnold,  after  inspecting  foreign 
school  systems,  returned  to  report  to  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Endowed  Schools,  which  had  sent 
him  out,  with  the  appeal:  "Organize  your  sec 
ondary  and  your  superior  education/'  Ten  years 
later  Professor  Huxley,  in  the  first  London  School 
Board,  urged  an  arrangement  by  which  a  passage 
could  be  secured  for  children  of  superior  ability 
from  the  elementary  schools  to  schools  in  which 
they  could  obtain  a  higher  instruction.  No  educa 
tional  system,  he  said — in  a  notable  speech,  now 
familiar,  I  think,  to  most  American  educators —  no 
such  system  would  be  worthy  the  name  of  a  na 
tional  system,  "unless  it  established  a  great  edu 
cational  ladder,  the  bottom  of  which  should  be  in 
the  gutter  and  the  top  in  the  university,  on  which 
every  child  who  had  the  strength  to  climb  might, 
by  using  that  strength,  reach  the  place  for  which 
nature  intended  him." 

But  the  appeal  of  Matthew  Arnold  is  not  yet 
fully  answered,  the  dream  of  Professor  Huxley 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

not  yet  fully  realized.  Unsystematic  as  the  pri 
mary  education  has  been  found,  secondary  educa 
tion  is  still  more  so.  There  are  in  London  "  higher 
grade  schools,"  "organized  science  schools/' and 
"higher  elementary  schools/' Some  of  these  are 
merely  the  highest  class  of  elementary  schools, 
reaching  up  into  subjects  proper  to  the  first  years 
in  secondary  education ;  some  others  represent  a 
rather  confused  effort  to  promote  secondary  edu 
cation,  technical  education,  and  commercial  art 
education  side  by  side;  some  of  them  give  efficient 
instruction  in  chemistry,  physics,  electricity,  phys 
iology,  botany,  French,  German,  algebra,  geom 
etry,  trigonometry,  English  literature,  and  his 
tory.  It  is  not  clear  that  many  of  them  enable  their 
students  to  pass  on  to  the  universities.  A  "higher 
grade"  school  at  Leeds  has  a  superior  record  in 
that  respect,  ninety-three  of  its  pupils  having 
matriculated  at  London  University,  and  sixty-five 
having  taken  university  degrees. 

There  is  another  development  of  secondary  ed 
ucation  directly  from  the  elementary  schools,  gen 
erally  more  practical  in  its  nature, and  tending  often 
to  scientific  or  technical  courses.  This  is  the  one 
stimulated  by  a  system  of  scholarships,  junior, inter 
mediate,  and  senior,  offered  by  the  London  County 
Council  and  open  to  competition  by  the  pupils  in 
the  elementary  schools.  About  six  hundred  junior 
scholarships  are  thus  given  in  a  year  to  boys  and 
girls  under  thirteen  years  of  age,  and  nearly  all 
go  to  pupils  of  the  council  schools.  These  keep  the 

[  277  !] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

children  at  a  higher  grade  council  school  or  at  a 
secondary  school  for  two  years,  pay  fees  where 
there  are  any,  and  give  the  pupil  for  his  mainte 
nance  for  the  two  years  an  allowance  of  ^20 ;  but 
the  parents  of  the  children  receiving  them  must 
have  an  income  less  than  £150,  say  less  than  $750. 
The  boy  or  girl  who  gains  one  of  these  scholar 
ships  gets  tuition  one  year  beyond  the  usual  four 
teen  year  limit,  and  is  then  able  to  compete  for  an 
intermediate  scholarship.  These  again  are  open  to 
any  under  sixteen,  whose  parents  have  an  income 
of  less  than  ^400  a  year;  and  when  won,  secure 
any  fees  in  secondary  schools,  together  with  an 
allowance  of  £55  for  maintenance  for  two  years. 
There  are  about  one  hundred  of  them  a  year  for 
all  London,  and  they  practically  denote  the  high- 
water  mark  of  council  school  education.  There  are 
still,  however,  seven  or  eight  senior  scholarships 
a  year,  and  these  carry  the  successful  contestants 
for  three  years  at  a  university,  with  tuition  fees 
and  a  maintenance  of  £30  a  year.  This,  it  will  be 
observed,  constitutes  a  genuine  scheme  of  state 
supported  secondary  education.  It  is  not  open  to  all 
who  may  have  passed  through  the  lower  classes 
and  feel  like  keeping  on.  But  it  is  open  to  the  se 
lected  few  who  have  shown  special  qualifications 
for  a  higher  training,  and  whose  parents  are  poor ; 
and  to  these  most  hopeful  and  most  deserving  chil 
dren  of  the  empire  their  government  extends  not 
merely  free  tuition,  but  free  support. 

Those  seeking  the  old  universities,  and  many 

C 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

of  those  seeking  scientific  courses  at  the  new  ones, 
still  resort,  if  they  can,  either  to  schools  conducted 
for  private  profit,  or  to  the  public  schools,  so  called, 
i.e.,  endowed  schools,  like  Harrow,  Rugby,  West 
minster,  St.  Paul's,  Manchester  Grammar  School, 
and  thirty  or  thirty-five  more.  Many  of  these  are 
ancient  foundations,  and  they  have  borne  a  vital 
relation  to  some  of  the  proudest  pages  of  English 
history.  At  least  two  of  them,  Winchester  and 
Eton,  were  well  endowed  for  the  time  and  in  suc 
cessful  operation  before  the  discovery  of  America. 
A  much  larger  number  were  established  before  the 
colonies  at  Jamestown  and  Plymouth  were;  and 
most  of  the  more  noted  ones  before  our  Declara 
tion  of  Independence.  These  schools  belong,  there 
fore,  to  our  history,  too.  They  recall  to  us  as  well  as 
Englishmen,  in  their  scrupulously  guarded  rolls, 
the  successive  generations  of  eminent  men,  whose 
achievements  are  a  part  of  our  inheritance.  They 
make  alive  again  the  proud  records  above  the 
sacred  dust  of  myriads  of  the  great  departed  all 
over  the  land,  from  stately  cathedrals  to  the  quiet 
churchyard  of  the  remotest  hamlet.  This  sacred 
dust  it  was  that  gave  the  inspiration  to  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes's  eulogy  of  England  and  her 
illustrious  dead,  and  justified  his  vivid  outburst: 

"  One  half  her  soil  has  walked  the  rest, 
In  poets,  heroes,  martyrs,  sages." 

These  public  schools  are  in  general  splendidly 
healthy  and  useful  yet;  within  their  field  and  for 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

their  purposes  unsurpassed  in  the  educational  work 
of  the  world.  But  their  field,  until  recent  years,  has 
been  almost  exclusively  the  humanities ;  and  their 
aim,  senior  wranglerships  and  double  firsts  in  the 
universities,  the  front  benches  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  responsible  places  all  around  the 
world  in  the  administration  of  the  empire,  or  in 
their  most  esteemed  services,  the  army,  the  navy, 
and  the  church.  Till  1851  mathematics  was  not 
compulsory  at  Eton,  nor  French  till  1862.  Natural 
science  was  scarcely  noticed. 

An  English  educational  writer  has  unfairly  said 
that  "England  is  the  country  where  dead  systems 
live/'  A  student  of  her  educational  history  might 
be  tempted  to  accept  that  judgment  if  he  looked 
merely  to  the  fact  that  it  was  only  as  late  as  1895, 
and  after  the  notable  report  of  Mr.  James  Bryce 
on  the  best  methods  of  establishing  a  well-organ 
ized  system  of  secondary  education  in  England, 
that  a  central  organization  was  created  to  coordi 
nate  all  these  previous  divergent  and  unregulated 
schools  which  furnish  the  links  between  the  ele 
mentary  schools  below  and  the  universities  above, 
as  well  as  the  technical  and  scientific  schools  that 
ought  to  be  above.  Before  that  date  the  most  con 
siderable  part  of  the  secondary  education  work  was 
under  the  control  of  the  Charity  Commission !  The 
Science  and  Art  Department  had  been  administer 
ing  the  newer  plans  to  meet  the  special  demand 
for  technical  instruction,  and  had  the  disposition 

[   280  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

of  an  income  for  this  purpose  of  nearly  a  million 
pounds  (five  million  dollars)  per  annum.  The  Ed 
ucation  Department  had  charge  of  the  elementary 
schools,  and,  as  has  been  seen,  had  developed  from 
these  some  interesting  advances  into  the  second 
ary  field.  At  last,  in  1900,  a  board  of  education 
was  created,  which  took  over  the  secondary  educa 
tional  work  of  the  Charity  Commission,  of  the  Sci 
ence  and  Art  Department,  and  of  the  Educational 
Department. 

The  work  thus  finally  coordinated  had  reached 
great  proportions.  In  1892  the  Charity  Commis 
sioners  reported  the  educational  endowments  in 
England  alone,  available  for  secondary  education, 
as  producing  an  income  of  over  ,£697,000  a  year, 
say  three  and  one-half  million  dollars — not  to 
reckon  at  all  the  value  of  their  buildings  and  sites. 
In  1897  the  Educational  Department  made  a  cen 
sus  of  English  secondary  schools.  Its  returns  were 
thought  to  be  vitiated  by  including  many  not  really 
entitled  to  rank  as  secondary  schools;  but  it  re 
ported  6209  of  them,  with  pupils  numbering  almost 
ten  in  the  thousand  of  the  whole  population.  The 
Science  and  Art  Department  received  the  cus 
toms  and  excise  money  (popularly  "the  whiskey 
money  " ) ,  and  from  this  fund  technical  schools  were 
given  nearly  =£864,000  in  1900,  while  the  sum 
raised  for  the  same  purpose  by  rates  ( local  taxes ) 
amounted  to  £\ 06,000  more,  say  in  all  over  four 
and  three-quarter  million  dollars.  Under  the  lat 
est  legislation  this  goes  to  the  county  councils,  and 

[    281     ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

the  councils  of  county  boroughs  and  of  urban  dis 
tricts.  It  must  be  spent  on  secondary  education. 
They  have  authority  to  raise  more  by  local  rates, 
but  this  in  the  case  of  counties  must  not  exceed 
a  two-pence  rate. 

At  present  the  regulations  forbid  teaching  more 
than  thirty-five  scholars  together  at  one  time. 
They  permit  fees  that  may  be  approved  by  the 
board,  but  require  that  one-fourth  of  the  school 
places  be  open  without  fees  to  pupils  from  ele 
mentary  schools  who  pass  a  satisfactory  entrance 
examination.  The  number  of  such  schools  in  Eng 
land  and  Wales  recognized  by  the  board  and  given 
state  aid  was  six  hundred  and  eighty-nine,  in  the 
years  1905-06,  and  the  number  of  pupils  was 
ninety-four  thousand  six  hundred  and  eighty-nine. 

As  early  as  1895  the  feeling  that  general  sec 
ondary  education  was  in  danger  of  being  neglected 
in  the  rush  for  scientific  or  technical  or  trade 
training,  took  shape  in  the  form  of  a  requirement 
for  compulsory  literary  and  commercial  instruction. 
At  the  same  time  religious  instruction  is  not  made 
compulsory,  and  only  non-sectarian  instruction  is 
permitted. 

I  have  not  mentioned  Scotch  or  Irish  schools. 
The  systems  are  different.  There  is  only  space  to 
note  that  as  to  Scotland  general  popular  education 
began  early  and  has  been  thorough,  almost  uni 
versal,  and  highly  successful;  while  as  to  Ireland 
the  religious  question  has  been  even  more  control 
ling  and  more  embarrassing  than  in  England.  In 

[    282    ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

all  three  there  is  more  than  ever  before  an  accept 
ance  of  the  idea  tersely  expressed  by  President 
Roosevelt  to  Mr.  Moseley,  that  while  education 
alone  may  not  make  a  nation,  it  would  surely  be 
ruined  without  it. 

Attendance  at  English  elementary  and  second 
ary  schools  is  still  apt  to  stop  at  the  age  of  four 
teen,  if  not  earlier,  but  the  tendency  begins  to  be 
toward  a  longer  stay.  Sports  are  still  an  absorbing 
part  of  the  school  work,  and  interest  in  them  is 
almost  as  necessary  for  the  teacher  as  scholarship. 
The  teachers  are  not  so  apt  to  show  individuality 
and  energy  as  they  are  to  be  careful  and  perti 
nacious.  Much  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  train 
ing  of  teachers*of  late  years,  but  the  system  of 
"pupil  teachers"  has  still  to  eke  out  the  supply. 
In  the  great  cities  there  is  an  enormous  and  in 
teresting  development  of  evening  schools.  Trade 
schools  are  increasingly  numerous  and  popular. 
In  the  great  technical  schools  there  is  a  notice 
able  absence  of  pupils  who  seek  easy  electives,and 
are  there  chiefly  for  the  degree.  Often  the  work  is 
not  very  rapid,  but  it  is  apt  to  be  thorough.  In  all 
these  directions  the  admonition  of  the  Prince  of 
Wales  on  his  return  from  his  eastern  trip  has  been 
heard,  and  England  has  "waked  up." 

It  will  have  been  noted  that  in  elementary  schools 
the  prevailing  tendency  of  late  years  has  been 
toward  sense-training,  object  lessons,  and  manual 
employment.  So  among  secondary  schools  the  tend- 

C   283   3 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

ency  has  been  toward  studies  fitting  for  practical 
scientific,  or  manufacturing  and  commercial  life. 
Both  are  more  democratic  than  the  historic  public 
schools;  and  there  begins  to  be  a  greater  mingling 
of  classes  in  the  more  recent  secondary  schools, 
in  the  scientific  technological  schools,  and  in  the 
newer  universities  to  which  they  lead. 

Naturally,  then,  the  chief  new  development  of 
educational  activity  has  been  in  the  expansion  or 
creation  of  advanced  institutions  to  carry  on  this 
practical  training  beyond  the  secondary  stage. 
Until  less  than  a  century  ago,  there  were  only 
two  universities  in  England  and  Wales.  Now  there 
are  ten.  Practically  all  the  new  ones  yield  the  pre 
eminence  in  the  old  classical,  mathematical,  and 
philosophic  training  to  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
while  they  strive  to  occupy  more  thoroughly  the 
less  developed  field  of  scientific  and  technologi 
cal  work.  Then  there  are  twenty-three  technical 
institutions  in  England  and  Wales,  recognized  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  and  two  hundred  and 
thirty-one  schools  of  art  applied  to  the  industries. 

The  universities  have  been  slowly  led  to  exami 
nations  for  the  various  kinds  of  secondary  schools, 
some  of  which  serve  as  leaving  examinations  for 
the  schools  and  others  as  matriculation  examina 
tions  for  the  universities,  though  often  used  by  the 
recipients  for  other  purposes.  Oxford  and  Cam 
bridge  took  up  this  work  near  the  middle  of  the 
last  century,  first  separately,  then  in  a  joint  board. 
Subsequently,  London  University  undertook  it  on 

[   284  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

a  large  scale,  and  Durham,  Victoria,  and  Birming 
ham  have  moved  in  the  same  direction.  The  City 
and  Guilds  of  London  Institute  also  held  examina 
tions  for  technical  schools  and  classes  throughout 
the  country. 

A  word  in  closing  might  be  given  to  the  Rhodes 
scholarships  at  Oxford.  We  have  almost  a  hun 
dred  young  American  graduates  there,  distributed 
through  the  colleges  of  that  venerable  and  illus 
trious  university.  They  are  chosen  on  examination, 
two  from  each  state  and  territory ;  they  are  given 
free  the  best  the  university  can  offer  through  a 
three  years'  stay,  and  they  receive  from  the  fund 
an  allowance  of  ^300,  say  $1500,  per  year  for 
their  maintenance.  The  purpose  of  the  great  man 
who  founded  this  trust  was  to  increase  intimate 
and  friendly  relations  between  the  most  highly 
educated  classes  of  the  mother  country  and  those 
of  her  "giant  offspring  of  the  West;"  and  to  fur 
ther  a  good  understanding  between  the  three 
nationalities  included  in  the  arrangement,  Eng 
land,  Germany,  and  the  United  States.  I  have  met 
with  these  Rhodes  scholars  at  their  annual  reun 
ion  at  Oxford;  and  I  am  glad  to  testify  at  home  to 
their  admirable  appearance  and  conduct,  and  to  the 
favorable  opinions  of  them  expressed  to  me  by 
the  Oxford  dons  with  whom  I  conversed.  As  one 
saw  them  together,  breaking  in  upon  the  cloistered 
quiet  of  those  historic  halls,  he  might  almost  im 
agine  himself  at  a  big  Middle  West  college  in  our 
own  country.  He  would  scarcely  be  able  to  single 

[  285  ] 


EDUCATION  IN  ENGLAND 

out  the  German  Rhodes  scholars  from  the  rest, 
and  quite  unable  to  tell  Americans  from  Australians 
or  Rhodesians  or  Newfoundlanders  or  Cape  Colo 
nists  or  New  Zealanders.  But  about  them  all  was 
the  air  of  new  worlds  and  a  new  era.  One  might 
almost  fancy  their  eyes  had  already  seen  the  glory 
of  the  time  when,  under  the  leadership  of  the  Eng 
lish-speaking  peoples,  the  war  drum  throbbed  no 
longer,  and  the  battle-flags  were  furled,  in  the  par 
liament  of  man,  the  federation  of  the  world. 


C   286 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

FIRST  of  all,  let  me  make  my  best  acknow 
ledgments  for  the  most  gratifying  honor  of 
my  life.  To  come  back  to  Xenia,  to  the  dear  old 
town  which  in  my  boyhood  treated  me  so  much 
better  than  I  deserved,  and  around  which  centre 
my  earliest  and  happiest  recollections,  is  always 
a  pleasure;  to  come,  an  absent  son,  summoned  by 
the  council  for  the  opening  of  the  new  City  Hall, 
is  more  than  a  pleasure — it  is  a  grateful  duty. 

We  have  been  hearing,  however,  of  late,  that 
it  is  no  longer  quite  prudent  to  make  public  con 
fession  of  the  fact  that  one  was  born  in  Ohio.  It 
is  going  to  be  a  political  crime,  a  sort  of  pleading 
guilty  to  political  disability.  The  fault,  you  will 
observers  not  entirely  in  living  here;  it  attaches 
even  to  the  error  of  having  been  so  inconsider 
ate  as  to  be  born  here.  Massachusetts,  a  few  years 
ago,  might  people  half  the  legislatures  and  execu 
tive  chambers  of  the  Northwest,  and  crowd  their 
delegations  in  Congress,  and  gather  in  the  prizes 
of  half  the  diplomatic  service ;  it  only  added  to  the 
glory  of  the  Puritan  Commonwealth  that  stood 
there  on  her  bays,  and  spoke  for  herself.  Virginia 
might  fill  offices  with  similar  frequency  on  lines 
of  emigration  a  little  further  south,  and  it  only 
added  to  the  pride  of  the  whole  country  in  what 
they  delighted  to  call  the  Old  Dominion,  the  Mo 
ther  of  Presidents.  But  when  her  greatest  off 
spring,  the  first-born  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 

C  289  ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

became  the  Mother  of  Presidents  too,  and  when 
her  wandering  sons,  in  turn,  came  to  the  front,  all 
over  the  Union,  in  war,  or  politics,  or  business,  the 
feeling  seemed  suddenly  to  change.  A  huge  de 
tective  society  was  forthwith  formed,  whose  duty 
was  not  only  to  note  with  disparagement  every 
advance  of  an  Ohio  man,  but  to  ferret  out  and  to 
"spot "every  advancing  man  in  any  other  state 
who  could  be  suspected  of  having  been  born  in 
Ohio.  When  found,  the  order  was  simple  and  per 
emptory:  "Hunt  him  down!'* 

Well,  with  the  changed  conditions  of  our  local 
emigration,  that  becomes  something  of  an  under 
taking.  Forty  years  ago  the  chief  native  source  of 
supply  for  the  hardy  settlers  who  toiled  westward 
in  the  old  Conestoga  wagons, 

:<  Who  crossed  the  prairies,  as  of  old 

Their  fathers  crossed  the  sea, 
To  make  the  West,  as  they  the  East, 
The  homestead  of  the  free," 

was  in  New  England,  and  particularly  in  Massa 
chusetts.  For  the  past  fifteen  or  twenty  years  it 
has  been  in  Ohio.  There  is  no  land  into  which  their 
lines  have  not  gone.  There  is  no  state  or  territory 
to  the  westward  Ohio  emigrants  have  not  largely 
helped  to  people.  Call  over  the  familiar  names  of 
the  pioneer  families  of  Greene  County,  and  see 
where  you  will  find  their  living  representatives. 
Take  theGalloways,theTownsleys,the  Kyles,  the 
Turnbulls,  the  Harbines,  the  Baughmans,  the  Mc- 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

Coys,  the  Colliers,  the  Gowdys,  the  Shields,  the 
Sterretts,theDeans,theCollinses,thePuterbaughs, 
the  Hivlings,the  Nisongers,the  Snyders,  the  An- 
kenys,the  Barbers, the  McMillans, the  Millers, the 
Bells,  the  Corrys,  the  Stevensons,  the  Laugheads, 
the  Whitemans,the  McHattons,  the  Maxwells, the 
Armstrongs,  the  McClungs, — what  one  is  there 
that  has  not  more  members  in  the  West  than  here 
at  the  old  home?"  You  can  take  your  horse  and 
buggy/' said  one  of  our  emigrants,4 'on  the  banks 
of  the  Miami,  and  drive  to  the  base  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  stopping  every  night  at  an  Ohio  man's 
house." 

So  the  huge  detective  society, of  which  we  spoke, 
has  plenty  of  work  on  its  hands.  For  wherever  this 
Ohio  emigrant  went,  he  carried  with  him  the  Ohio 
basis, — education,  manliness,  self-reliance,  enter 
prise;  in  a  word,  the  Ohio  blood, — and  he  made  his 
way.  One  day  an  Ohio  emigrant  turns  up  in  the 
Senate  from  Kansas,  the  next, in  the  Supreme  Court 
from  Georgia,  the  next,  in  some  other  conspicu 
ous  place  he  has  fairly  earned  and  to  which  the 
people  of  his  adopted  state  help  advance  him ;  but 
every  time  the  detective  society  groans  and  hoots 
and  exclaims:  "Another  Ohio  man  in  office — is 
nobody  else  to  have  a  show?  Hit  his  head.  Never 
mind  where  he  spent  his  life  or  what  he  has  done ; 
he  was  born  in  Ohio ! "  And  yet  the  truth  is  that 
if  Ohio  were  to  be  represented  as  Massachusetts 
and  Virginia  have  been,  she  has  not  nearly  offices 
enough !  A  comparison  in  appointments  is  difficult; 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

but  one  as  to  elections  may  easily  be  made.  Go 
no  further  back  than  the  beginning  of  this  polit 
ical  period — say  about  the  time  the  Republican 
party  arose — and  take  the  representation  in  Con 
gress.  In  1856  there  were  in  the  two  Houses 
twenty-three  men  of  Virginia  birth,  fourteen  from 
Massachusetts, and,  notwithstanding  her  size,  only 
twenty  from  Ohio.  To-day  there  are  still  twenty- 
one  of  Virginia  birth,  thirteen  from  Massachu 
setts,  and  thirty-five  from  Ohio.  But  if  Ohio  were 
to  be  represented  merely  in  proportion  to  popu 
lation,  as  Virginia  was  in  1856,  she  should  still 
have  thirteen  more !  If  in  proportion  not  only  to  her 
size  but  to  the  quality  of  her  product,  perhaps  we 
ought  modestly  to  refrain  from  saying  how  many 
more  yet  it  would  be  fortunate  for  the  country  to 
get  her  to  furnish ! 

A  friend  of  mine  recently  received  a  dispatch 
about  which  there  has  been  some  talk.  It  congrat 
ulated  him  on  his  election  to  the  Senate  because 
he  had  never  apologized  for  being  "a  Stalwart/' 
Well,  here  is  a  wandering  Ohioan  who  has  never 
apologized  and  never  means  to  apologize  for  his 
birthplace. 

The  tools  to  those  that  can  use  them.  If  you  don't 
like  men  of  Ohio  birth  in  public  life,  find  better  men, 
and  persuade  the  people  that  they  are  better.  But 
don't  resort  to  the  puerile  course  of  condemning 
them  merely  because  of  their  birth — -breaking  their 
heads  because  they  were  once  within  the  prohib 
ited  lines  of  longitude.  There  have  been  times  when 

C  292  ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

one's  being  an  Ohioan  was  not  an  objection  to  his 
serving  the  state.  When  you  had  Edwin  M.  Stanton 
as  Secretary  of  War,  and  Ben  Wade  as  Chair 
man  of  the  Committee  on  the  Conduct  of  the  War, 
and  John  Sherman  as  Chairman  of  the  Finance 
Committee,  was  there  anybody  uneasy,  anybody 
less  than  grateful,  that  the  noblest  Roman  of  them 
all,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  was  at  the  same  time  Sec 
retary  of  the  Treasury?  When  you  had  Grant  at  the 
head  of  one  army,  nobody  wanted  to  drive  Sher 
man  away  from  another  because  he  also  was  born 
in  Ohio.  Even  Sheridan  was  forgiven  the  offence  of 
his  birthplace ;  and  McPherson  was  mourned  as  sin 
cerely  as  if  he  had  not  been  another  of  those  push 
ing  Ohioans.  When  Gillmore  was  bombarding  Fort 
Sumter,  and  revolutionizing  our  artillery  practice 
and  coast  defence,  his  birth  in  Ohio  was  not  thought 
to  injure  the  range  of  his  projectiles;  and  when 
Steedman  and  Garfield,  political  foes,  but  brothers 
in  patriotic  devotion,  left  a  disheartened  chief  and 
rode  without  orders  toward  the  sound  of  the  ene 
my's  cannon, till  through  fire  and  blood  they  found 
the  Rock  of  Chick amauga,  the  nation  in  its  grati 
tude  for  their  heroism  quite  overlooked  the  crime 
of  their  birth. 

And  so,  once  again,  let  us  fall  back  upon  the 
motto  of  the  great  Scotchman  so  recently  gone 
from  us:  "The  tools  to  him  that  can  use  them/' 
If  you  want  fewer  of  these  Ohioans  in  prominent 
places,  match  them !  Or  surpass  them!  Till  then, 
why  not  frankly  recognize  the  position  of  the  great 

C   293   ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

state  that  produced  them,  the  centre  of  the  national 
population,  the  focus  and  very  flower  of  its  freest, 
manliest  development.  Peopled  mainly  by  Massa 
chusetts  and  Virginia  influences,  of  the  best,  most 
adventurous,  and  self-reliant  types,  it  nourished 
a  population  strongly  marked  by  the  most  desira 
ble  characteristics  of  this  dual  origin,  and  it  holds, 
because  it  deserves,  the  legitimate  successorship  to 
both,  in  its  present  place  at  the  National  Council 
Board,  and  in  the  physical  and  the  intellectual  strife 
of  the  continent. 

Why  Virginia  and  Massachusetts  were  able  to 
assert  and  so  long  maintain  their  leadership,  our 
historians  have  fairly  shown.  Why  the  power  and 
place  of  both  should  have  passed  so  unmistakably 
and  conspicuously  to  the  "  territory  northwest  of 
the  Ohio,  and  the  Connecticut  Reserve/'  some 
Western  Buckle  may  yet  find  it  a  most  interesting 
study  to  trace. 

He  would  note  the  fine  mingling  of  races — the 
first  actual  blending  of  the  Virginia  and  Massachu 
setts  strains,  with  a  strong  infusion  of  the  sturdy 
Scotch-Irish  from  over  the  Pennsylvania  border. 
He  would  appreciate  the  gain  in  climate  to  each 
— the  winters  permitting  greater  activity  than  in 
New  England,  but  not  encouraging  the  laxity  of 
more  southern  regions.  He  would  observe  not  only 
the  fertility  of  the  soil,  but  the  boundless  mineral 
resources  that  almost  compelled  a  more  varied 
industry.  And  having  thus  recognized  three  of  the 

294 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

notable  four  classes  of  physical  agents  to  which  the 
philosophical  historian  of  civilization  referred  all 
the  external  phenomena  by  which  the  development 
of  man  has  been  permanently  affected,  he  would 
not  fail  also  to  find  in  the  fourth, or  "the  general 
aspect  of  nature/'  an  equal  significance.  We  do  not 
sufficiently  appreciate  the  total  difference  between 
the  stern  face  nature  showed  the  hardy  pioneers 
in  Ohio  and  the  easier  dandling  she  gave  to  the  less 
strenuous  sons  of  the  prairie.  Here  was  no  marking 
out  the  lines  of  a  farm  with  a  furrow,  to  be  followed 
by  an  immediate  entry  upon  its  cultivation.  The 
land  was  covered  with  dark  and  pathless  forests. 
It  was  threaded  by  rivers,  the  Muskingum,the  Sci- 
oto,  the  Miami,  the  Maumee,  which  were  the  first 
means,  and  yet  the  most  dangerous,  for  penetrat 
ing  the  wilderness. Their  banks  were  lined  by  the 
bravest  Indians  of  the  West,  the  tribes  that  rallied 
around  Logan  and  Tecumseh,  the  Wyandots,  the 
Cherokees,the  Delawares,  and  the  Shawnees,  the 
last  of  whom,  at  their  capital  in  your  own  county, 
scarcely  four  miles  from  where  we  stand,  achieved 
the  distinction  of  holding  as  their  prisoner  the  most 
famous  pioneer  of  the  West,  Daniel  Boone  him 
self.  There  were  no  railroads  to  bring  the  luxuries 
of  civilization  to  the  frontiersman's  cabin.  You  can 
track  the  emigration  across  the  plains  by  the  lines 
of  empty  fruit  cans  and  the  bottles  that  once  held 
— let  us  hope — Apollinaris  water.  But  you  could 
track  the  pioneers  through  the  white  oak  and  black 
walnut  forests  of  Ohio  only  by  the  blaze  of  the 

C  295  H 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

tomahawk  on  the  trees,  the  marks  of  the  struggle 
with  bear  or  panther,  the  sadder  marks  that  told, 
too  often,  of  the  Indian  ambush.  There  were  no 
telegraphs,  as  now,  in  many  of  our  frontier  settle 
ments, to  keep  them  feeling  the  throbbing  pulses  of 
a  feverish  world  outside ;  no  newspapers  to  distract 
them  with  the  daily  records  of  crime  the  world 
over;  scarcely  even  an  occasional  mail  to  bring  a 
three  months'  old  letter  from  wife  or  sweetheart 
left  behind.  They  lived  isolated  lives,  in  the  heart  of 
the  forest,  fighting  nature  and  fighting  the  Indians. 

Sobered  by  these  severe  surroundings,  nerved 
by  these  difficulties,  purified  by  these  deprivations, 
this  mingled  strain  of  Puritan,  Cavalier,  and 
Scotch-Irishman  bred  in  the  forests  and  on  the 
clearings  between  the  river  and  the  lake,  the  self- 
reliant  race  that  has  given  this  state  its  place  in  the 
Republic.  Whether  she  can  maintain  it  or  not,  who 
can  tell?  Emigration  is  draining  away  her  best 
blood,  as  it  did  that  of  Virginia  and  Massachu 
setts;  and  it  does  not  always  happen  that  under 
the  luxuries  of  an  older  civilization  the  children 
emulate  the  high  virtues  of  their  hardy  ancestry. 
But  whatever  the  future  may  have  in  store,  we  can 
say  of  our  state,  our  gracious  Mother,  as  Webster 
said  of  Massachusetts,  the  Past  at  least  is  secure. 
The  place  she  has,  she  has  earned. 

Nor  does  there  seem  any  immediate  danger  of 
her  losing  it.  None  of  us,  whatever  our  politics,  are 
hanging  our  heads  for  the  Administration  that  is 
just  drawing  to  a  close.  Whether  we  approve  its 

C 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

policy  or  not,  we  agree  that  under  it  we  have  come 
to  unprecedented  prosperity;  that  our  business  has 
been  well  and  honestly  managed ;  that  the  public 
service  is  clean,  and  the  public  faith  untarnished. 
It  has  indeed  given  us  peace  with  honor ;  and  the 
man  whom  you  three  times  chose  governor  retires 
from  a  most  difficult  presidency,  upon  which  he 
entered  amid  universal  prophecies  of  failure,  far 
more  popular  with  the  whole  country  than  when  he 
was  elected,  and  with  the  reasonable  certainty  that 
twenty  years  hence,  when  the  petty  grudges  of 
the  disappointed  are  forgotten,  his  Administration 
will  be  reckoned  by  both  parties  one  of  the  most 
creditable  and  fortunate  in  our  history. 

Two  years  ago,  before  the  Convention  of  Ohio 
Editors,  I  ventured  the  prediction  that,  whichever 
party  succeeded,  the  next  President  too  would  be 
an  Ohio  man.  One  party  missed  its  opportunity  by 
failing  to  choose  the  one  man,  clean,  incorruptible, 
able,  patriotic,  whom  it  had  a  fair  chance  to  elect. 
So  of  course,  when  Henry  B.  Payne,  of  Cleveland, 
was  not  nominated  by  the  Democrats,  there  was 
nothing  for  the  country  to  do  but  elect  the  distin 
guished  citizen  of  Mentor,  who  had  been  nomi 
nated  by  the  Republicans.  Now,  a  little  further  in 
advance,  let  us  hazard  another  non-partisan  pre 
diction,  and  challenge  the  horror  of  the  society 
for  the  detection  and  exposure  of  Ohioans,  by  de 
claring  that  the  state  which  has  given  the  country 
Grant  and  Hayes  and  Garfield  will  once  more 
furnish  the  President  in  1884! 

C   297  ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

We  shall  all  be  happy  over  it,  too.  Ohioans 
rarely  lose  the  state  pride  and  the  personal  satisfac 
tion  in  a  success  worthily  won  by  a  fellow  citizen 
that  makeyour  politics  dignified,  and  even  the  fierc 
est  of  your  political  battles  measurably  free  from 
petty  meanness.  It  was  from  political  opponents, 
charmed  by  a  chivalric  courtesy  never  lost  in  the 
sharpest  struggles,  that  Senator  Pendleton  fairly 
earned  that  most  complimentary  and  agreeable  of 
political  sobriquets, "Gentleman  George."  When 
Henry  B.  Payne  came  promptly  forward  at  the  be 
ginning  of  a  feverish  Presidential  campaign,  to  say 
that  he  utterly  scouted  the  charges  against  James 
A.  Garfield,  because  he  knew  him  thoroughly,  and, 
though  a  vehement  political  foe,  had  implicit  trust 
in  his  personal  honor,  he  gave  the  true  type  of 
Ohio  politics  and  Ohio  manliness.  Long  may  his 
tribe  increase ;  and  long  may  all  the  parties  in  the 
dear  old  state  continue  to  put  such  men  at  the  front. 

But  all  this  while  we  have  been  thinking  about 
our  state.  What  we  are  more  concerned  with  to 
night  is  our  city.  That  name  may  be  used  now,  no 
doubt,  without  reproach, — its  gloss  is  a  little  worn 
off.  But  having  helped  to  get  this  city  charter,  I 
remember  being  quizzed  by  a  neighboring  and 
unneighborly  newspaper  for  having  found  ways  to 
use  the  new  title  fifty-seven  times  in  a  single  issue 
of  the  paper,  the  week  afterward.  Admonished  by 
the  old  experience,  I  shall  be  careful  not  to  speak 
of  the  city  of  Xenia  too  often  to-night. 

[    298   ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

Indeed,  as  one  looks  around,  he  may  be  permit 
ted  to  wonder  whether  he  is  in  the  old  town  at  all. 
This  isn't  the  way  we  did  things,  in  my  time,  in 
Xenia.  McMillan  Hall  was  the  best  we  had  then, 
and  we  were  careful  to  keep  that  under,  or  rather 
over,  good  moral  influences,  by  putting  it  in  the 
loft,  with  one  end  resting  on  "The  Torch-Light" 
office,  and  the  other  on  the  local  depository  of 
the  American  Bible  Society.  Now  we  are  met  to 
open  a  new  City  Hall,  and  it  takes  the  form  of 
this  elegant  Opera  House,  as  big  as  some  of  the 
New  York  theatres  and  a  great  deal  prettier  than 
many  of  them.  What  would  Joseph  Vance  and 
the  pioneers  who,  with  him,  laid  out  the  town, 
have  said  if  before  their  eyes  closed  forever  on 
those  lovely  slopes  they  found  in  the  wilderness, 
they  had  been  invited  to  attend  a  town  meet 
ing  in  this  hall!  Even  I,  so  young  a  resident  that 
I  have  hardly  yet  recovered  from  the  disgrace 
of  having  been  detected  ( by  one  of  the  dear  old 
ladies  of  the  town,  with  a  painfully  precise  recol 
lection  of  dates)  in  editing  a  political  newspaper 
and  exhorting  people  how  to  vote  before  I  was  old 
enough  to  vote  myself, — even  I  am  forced  to  rub 
my  eyes  to  be  sure  that  all  this  is  real.  A  theatre 
— in  Xenia! — with  folding  chairs — and  a  dress 
circle — and  galleries — and  good  stage  scenery — 
and,  above  all,  this  portrait  of  Shakespeare — it 
passes  belief.  Why,  I  remember  a  lad  here,  of  ten 
or  eleven  years  of  age,  coddled  too  much  perhaps 
by  anxious  parents  and  a  physician,  who  was  told 

299 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

he  must  quit  studying  so  hard,  and  take  to  light 
reading.  Light  reading  was  a  phrase  not  well  un 
derstood  in  sober  families  in  Greene  County  in 
those  days,  and  so  the  lad  asked  for  particulars. 
"  Oh,  any  light  thing  you  please/'  answered  the 
physician;  "take  Shakespeare!"  The  next  week 
came  along  a  doctor  of  another  school,  a  Boaner 
ges  of  the  faith,  Dr.  McMaster,  over  whose  more 
distinguished  son  you  have  lately  been  rearing 
a  memorial  shaft,  on  the  peaceful  hillside  beyond 
the  Shawnee.  According  to  the  fashion  of  the  day, 
the  lad  was  promptly  "  examined/'  and  after  Cat 
echism  and  Psalm  Book  and  Latin  declensions,  fol 
lowed  questions  of  books.  The  advice  about  light 
reading  thus  came  out."  Very  bad  advice/' groaned 
the  good  doctor;  "a  very  bad  lesson  for  a  boy. 
But  what  light  reading  have  you? "Then  Shake 
speare  was  confessed  and  the  horror  was  complete. 
"To  think/'  exclaimed  the  doctor,  "of  the  son 
of  so  good  a  man  wasting  his  time  and  corrupting 
his  mind  with  that  frivolous  and  profane  writer  of 
plays! "And  so  Shakespeare  was  summarily  taken 
away,  and  in  its  place  light  reading  was  furnished 
in  the  shape  of  Rollin's  "  Ancient  History/'  in  eight 
volumes !  Not  till  nearly  a  year  later  did  a  kinder 
fate  and  a  younger  clergyman,  your  own  sainted 
McMillan,  substitute  Plutarch's  "Lives"  and  the 
"  Percy  Anecdotes  " !  And  now,  in  this  same  place, 
after  a  special  act  of  the  legislature  and  an  over 
whelming  vote  of  the  people,  you  have  built  your 
new  Town  Hall  in  the  guise  of  an  Opera  House, 

C 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

and  as  you  entered  to-night  the  drop-curtain  faced 
you  with  the  portrait  of  Shakespeare  above  it! 

Well,  it  is  a  public-spirited  enterprise,  worthily  ex 
ecuted  by  your  faithful  official  servants.  You  have 
your  Town  Hall  and  Opera  House.  What  are  you 
going  to  do  with  it?  Doubtless  it  shows  that  this 
community  no  longer  regards  life  as  simply  a 
struggle,  but  is  willing  to  be  entertained  and  even 
amused,  as  well  as  instructed. 

The  amusements  will  be  sure  to  come.  Let  us 
only  hope  that  they  will  be  up  to  the  intellectual 
and  moral  level  of  a  county  second  in  these  regards 
to  none  in  the  state  or  the  nation.  Of  what  passes 
for  oratory,  too,  you  will  be  sure  to  have  an  abun 
dance,  and  we  may  well  hope  that,  while  you  are 
about  it,  you  will  get  the  best.  Even  then,  the  in 
tellectual  treats  this  platform  may  bring  you  will 
not  surpass  the  memories  of  your  youth.  This  com 
munity  has  been  used  to  the  eloquence  of  Henry 
Clay  and  Thomas  Ewing  and  Thomas  Corwin.  It 
has  heard  in  turbulent  times  the  fiery  appeals  of 
another,  whose  courage  and  force  even  his  bit 
terest  foes  had  to  recognize,  Clement  L.  Vallan- 
digham.  Under  the  trees  before  the  Court  House 
it  heard  Salmon  P.  Chase  end  an  impassioned  de 
fence  of  the  Free  Soilers  against  disunion  charges 
with  the  outburst:  "We  in  Ohio  are  accustomed 
to  look  on  the  union  of  these  states  as  we  look  on 
the  broad  arch  of  heaven  above  us,  undissolved 
and  indissoluble/'  I  have  listened  to  nearly  every 

C  301    ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

prominent  orator  of  the  country  in  this  generation, 
and  have  yet  to  hear  nobler  eloquence  than  re 
sounded  in  the  court-room  yonder  when  Thomas 
Corwin  rescued  from  a  Calvinistic  jury,  who  be 
lieved  that  murder  deserved  hanging,  an  Irish 
manslayer  from  Bellbrook;  or  more  persuasive 
teaching  than  fell  from  the  lips  of  our  Yellow 
Springs  neighbor,  Horace  Mann.  You  give  your 
speakers  a  finer  platform  now, — match  the  old 
eloquence  if  you  can. 

Let  us  hope,  too,  that  amid  these  more  elegant 
surroundings  you  will  still  keep  up  the  good  old 
wholesome  Greene  County  respect  for  politics ;  and 
that  your  Opera  House  will  not  wean  you  away 
from  that  careful  attention  to  political  discussion, — 
and  discussion  on  both  sides,  too,  —  which  used  to 
centre  about  a  Town  Hall.  I  wonder  if,  among  the 
disappearing  traditions  of  pioneer  Xenia,  there 
has  yet  faded  out  all  recollection  of  the  way  the  last 
jurymen  in  the  old  log  court  house  in  1804  were 
sworn.  Arthur  St.  Clair  came  up  from  Cincinnati, 
with  cocked  hat  and  sword,  to  serve  as  prosecut 
ing  attorney.  The  story  ran  that  he  hunted  in 
vain  for  a  Bible,  but  at  last  found  something  he 
thought  would  do,  and  upon  it  jury  and  witnesses 
"took  their  Bible  oath/'  The  volume  turned  out  to 
be  a  tattered  copy  of  the  "Arabian  Nights'  Enter 
tainments."  In  my  boyish  days  in  politics  here, 
when  things  went  wrong,  when  a  candidate  broke 
his  pledges  or  an  out-township  ally  was  found 

C    302    ]] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

to  have  deceived  us  and  worked  for  the  other 
man,  it  was  the  irreverent  and  rather  vulgar  habit 
to  say  that  our  politicians  anyway  were  lineal  de 
scendants  of  Arthur  St.  Clair's  witnesses,  and  their 
oaths  were  no  better.  Let  us  dignify,  not  degrade 
politics.  Let  us  realize — may  this  Town  Hall  per 
petually  teach — that  to  "go  into  politics"  is  to 
deal  with  the  highest  objects  of  human  concern; 
and  that  the  pretended  feeling  of  contempt  for  those 
who  do,  merely  because  they  do,  which  grows 
fashionable  now,  is  the  sure  sign  of  a  snob.  Next 
to  the  ministry  of  God,  the  highest  career  open  to 
human  ambition  is  the  service  of  the  people. 

This  place  ought,  besides,  to  become  the  centre 
and  incitement  for  some  special  intellectual  stir,  in 
the  community,  from  the  community,  and  about 
the  immediate  concerns  of  the  community.  It  should 
stimulate  what  we  may  call  a  real  municipal  life. 
Till  you  have  that,  you  lack  the  best  gift  of  our 
republican  institutions.  These  are  not  the  best  form 
of  government  because  they  insure  the  best  im 
mediate  results, — because  they  are  the  cheapest, 
or  the  simplest,  or  the  most  efficient.  They  are  the 
best  because  you  have  to  work  for  them,  and  work 
to  keep  them,  and  be  perpetually  active  in  run 
ning  them.  They  are  what  you  make  them;  and 
are  the  best  because  in  the  making  of  them  you 
yourselves  are  exercised  and  trained  and  built  up 
to  the  best  measure  of  free,  American  manhood. 
Government  by  the  people  must  always  be  expen- 

C  303  3 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

sive,  generally  slow,  and,  in  the  main,  carried  on 
only  through  the  strain  of  a  perpetual  excitement 
and  tumult  of  debate.  But  therein  lies  the  very  se 
cret  of  its  superiority.  It  is  not  the  mere  reaching 
the  goal  that  helps  the  athlete:  what  does  him  the 
real  benefit  is  his  running  the  race.  It  is  not  simply 
the  gathering  of  the  crops  that  makes  the  farmer's 
life  the  best;  it  is  the  work  of  growing  them.  It 
is  not  the  government  you  get  that  makes  repub 
licanism  the  best ;  it  is  the  work  you  have  in  get 
ting  it.  And  till  you  bestow  that  work  on  your  own 
municipal  affairs  you  are  not  getting  as  much  out 
of  the  great  privilege  of  republican  institutions  as 
you  ought  to  get. 

Rightly  used  to  stimulate  and  develop  a  true  mu 
nicipal  life,  this  hall  may  likewise  give  you  some 
other  mode  of  dealing  with  affairs  besides  the  news 
papers;  and  perhaps  I  may  be  permitted  to  say 
that  the  tendency  to  let  these  do  all  your  thinking 
in  public  affairs  is  not  an  unmixed  good.  Useful  as 
they  always  must  be  in  their  place,  and  unsur 
passed  in  their  sphere  as  the  journals  of  Xenia  cer 
tainly  are,  it  is  just  as  well  to  avoid  entire  depend 
ence  upon  them  for  municipal  discussion.  So,  too, 
in  the  atmosphere  of  spirited  inquiry  which  we  may 
hope  the  influences  centring  here  will  develop, 
should  come  broader  views  of  life  and  duty:  a 
recognition  of  the  fact  that  something  can  often 
be  said  on  the  other  side ;  a  wider  toleration  than 
is  always  common  in  rural  communities,  of  what 

C  304  H 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

other  people  think,  and  of  their  right  to  think  it, 
in  politics,  education,  temperance,  or  religion. 

On  some  special  topics  this  Town  Hall  should 
never  be  silent.  I  may  venture  to  name  three.  It 
should  keep  the  municipal  attention  fixed  with 
ceaseless  watchfulness  on  questions  of  public  mor 
als,  of  municipal  taxation  and  indebtedness,  and 
of  educational  necessities. 

On  the  first  of  these  there  is  no  need  to  dwell 
in  Xenia.  Here,  if  anywhere  in  Ohio,  that  is  the 
one  topic  sure  never  to  be  neglected.  To  the  second 
your  attention  may  not  have  been  so  faithfully 
called. 

The  growth  of  municipal  taxation  and  munici 
pal  indebtedness  is  in  fact  one  of  the  stealthiest  and 
most  seductive  of  our  foes.  Governor  Dennison 
once  told  me  he  was  a  great  believer  in  the  wis 
dom  of  a  young  man's  running  in  debt —  and  my 
worst  enemy  could  n't  deny  that  I  practised  faith 
fully  on  his  advice !  Half  the  municipalities  of  the 
country  seem  to  have  the  same  notion,  and  they 
don't  limit  the  time  for  running  in  debt  to  their 
youth,  either.  Six  years  ago  Senator  Elaine  esti 
mated  the  municipal  debt  of  the  country  at  five 
hundred  and  seventy  millions,  and  that  of  the  coun 
ties  at  one  hundred  and  eighty  millions  more.  The 
exhibit  startled  the  country.  General  Walker,  the 
Superintendent  of  the  Census,  is  taking  the  utmost 
care  now  to  develop  the  latest  facts  upon  the  sub 
ject.  To  the  officer  in  special  charge  of  the  inves- 

C  305  ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

tigation,  the  Hon.  Robert  P.  Porter,  of  Chicago,  I 
am  indebted  for  a  summary  of  what  has  already 
been  ascertained.  He  says: 

4  The  Census  of  1870  was,  as  you  doubtless  know,  sadly 
defective,  as  the  office  at  Washington  could  not,  under 
the  old  Census  law,  deal  directly  with  the  officials  of  the 
cities,  counties,  villages  and  towns,  and  school  districts 
throughout  the  country.  This  I  am  attempting  to  do  in 
the  present  investigation.  There  are  in  the  United  States 
330  cities  with  a  population  of  7500  and  upward,  and 
there  are  no  less  than  6016  incorporated  towns  and  vil 
lages  with  a  population  of  less  than  7500,  making  a  total 
of  6346  incorporated  towns  and  villages  which  have  to 
be  dealt  with  directly  from  this  office.  The  above  calcu 
lation  does  not  include  the  New  England  States,  Penn 
sylvania,  Illinois,  and  Indiana.  Where  the  township  has 
a  financial  existence  we  deal  with  the  township,  and  the 
number  of  townships  in  the  three  states  I  have  referred 
to  is  4000,  making  an  estimated  total  of  11,846  cities, 
towns,  and  townships,  to  say  nothing  of  the  2700  coun 
ties  of  the  country,  all  of  which  have  to  be  dealt  with  sep 
arately.  But  these  statistics  will  not  be  completed  until 
we  have  returns  from  all  the  school  districts,  number 
ing,  at  a  rough  guess,  between  70,000  and  80,000  divi 
sions,  to  the  financial  officers  of  which  schedules  have 
been  sent  and  a  correspondence  opened.  I  give  these  facts 
that  you  may  be  the  better  able  to  appreciate  the  im 
mense  detail  involved  in  the  collection  of  these  statistics. 
'When  the  present  investigation  is  ended  I  shall  be 
able  to  show  a  complete  analysis  of  this  vast  amount  of 
local  indebtedness,  which  will  reach  to  nearly  $900,000,- 
000,  comprising  an  exhibit  of  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  contracted,  the  amounts  contracted  each  year  from 

C   306  3 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

1860  to  the  close  of  1880,  the  amounts  maturing  each  year 
from  1880  to  1900,  and  the  rates  of  interest  they  bear.  I 
have  already  complete  returns  from  all  but  some  200  of  the 
towns  of  1000  population  and  upward." 

Nine  hundred  millions  of  local  debts,  county,  vil 
lage,  and  city,  wholly  outside  of  all  the  state  and 
national  indebtedness !  The  figures  are  almost  ap 
palling.  And  yet  this  is  only  the  part  of  the  extrav 
agant  local  expenditure  which  you  have  n't  paid 
for.  What  has  been  paid,  the  rapidly  rising  tax  rate 
shows.  Note  the  figures  in  this  suggestive  extract 
from  the  report  of  the  Hon.  R.  B.  Strang,  Chairman 
of  the  Commission  to  devise  a  plan  for  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  cities  of  Pennsylvania.  He  said: 

4  Without  referring  to  particular  cities  or  making  invidi 
ous  distinctions,  it  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  say  that  a  care 
fully  prepared  table,  showing  the  increase  of  population, 
valuation,  taxation,  and  indebtedness  of  fifteen  of  the 
principal  cities  of  the  United  States,  from  1860  to  1875, 
exhibits  the  following  result: 

Increase  in  population  70.5  per  cent 

Increase  in  taxable  valuation  156.9  percent 

Increase  in  debt  270.9  per  cent 

Increase  in  taxation  363.2  per  cent 

"It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  alarming  increase 
in  debt  and  taxation  occurred  during  a  period  of  great 
apparent  national  prosperity,  when  money  was  plenty, 
wrhen  property  commanded  enormous  values,  and  when 
it  was  easier  to  apply  the  maxim  '  pay  as  you  go '  than 
at  any  period  in  our  national  history." 

And  now  let  us  bring  the  examination  into  a  nar- 

[  307  H 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

rower  compass.  In  a  paper  by  Simon  Sterne,  in 
tended  to  show  substantially  that  universal  suf 
frage  in  large  cities  is  a  failure,  the  figures  are  col 
lated  showing  the  population,  taxation,  and  indebt 
edness  of  five  cities,  in  1860  and  in  1875.  I  omit 
the  details  and  will  read  you  merely  the  respec 
tive  percentages  of  increase  in  these  fifteen  years: 

Pofiula-  Taxa-  Indebted- 

tion  tion  ness 

Brooklyn  82.7  313.4  356.9 

New  York  28.5  430.9  504.1 

Philadelphia  30.6  317.8  152.3 

Providence  98.7  443.3  529.8 

Newark  65.2  558.8  2,658.2 

This  system  extends  over  the  whole  country.  In 
most  cases  the  figures  are  not  so  startling;  and 
yet  it  has  been  but  a  little  while  since  two  cities, 
one  near  New  York,  another  in  the  South,  became 
openly  bankrupt — the  debts  being  said  to  be  ac 
tually  greater  than  the  taxable  property;  while 
in  more  than  one  western  county  we  have  had 
the  distinct  repudiation  of  bonds  for  indebtedness 
which  nobody  disputed,  solely  because  the  county 
thought  it  could  n't  tax  heavily  enough  to  provide 
the  interest,  without  driving  off  its  population ! 

Let  me  give  you  only  one  more  contrast  in 
figures.  In  1875  the  amount  raised  by  the  New 
York  civic  government  was  $35  for  each  man, 
woman,  and  child  within  the  boundaries, — while 
the  immense  and  luxurious  city  of  London  taxed 
its  inhabitants  only  $10  each! 

C  308  ] 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

I  waste  no  time  in  enforcing  upon  an  audience 
like  this  the  significance  of  such  alarming  facts.  It 
is  enough  to  state  two  or  three  obvious  conclu 
sions  : 

1 i )  Such  municipal  indebtedness  tends  to  pro 
mote  wanton  extravagance  in  public  affairs. 

( 2 )  It  tends  to  demoralize  private  life. 

(  3 )  It  tends  to  weaken  the  senseof  public  honor. 

There  was  a  third  topic  on  which  it  was  thought 
that  the  influence  of  this  hall  should  keep  the 
municipal  attention  fixed — the  direction  of  your 
educational  necessities.  No  thoughtful  observer  has 
failed  to  notice  the  growing  discontent,  especially 
in  heavily  taxed  communities,  with  some  features 
of  the  existing  system.  It  tries  to  teach  too  much. 
It  teaches  little  thoroughly.  In  giving  a  smattering 
of  a  multitude  of  subjects,  it  neglects  the  essen 
tials.  It  unfits  boys  for  mechanics  and  manufac 
turers,  without  fitting  them  for  the  professions.  Its 
tendency  is  to  make  them  discontented  with  the 
country  where  they  are  wanted,  and  to  lure  them 
to  the  cities  where  they  strive  in  vain  to  find  a  place 
in  ranks  already  overcrowded.  It  reduces  the  pro 
ducers.  It  over-educates  great  numbers  for  the  only 
work  they  can  do,  at  the  expense  of  taxpayers,  who 
are  only  damaged  by  the  result  of  the  expenditure. 
These  are  among  the  current  objections.  Doubt 
less  they  overstate  the  case,  but  they  do  point  to 
a  dangerous  discontent,  and  they  do  centre  about 
one  undeniable  weakness.  It  is  true  that  the  sys- 

C  309  3 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

tern  is  top-heavy;  that  the  basis  is  too  flimsy  for 
the  ever  spreading  superstructure.  As  a  result  we 
turn  out  too  many  who  will  go  through  life  igno 
rant  of  arithmetic  because  they  have  spent  their 
time  on  chemistry,  deficient  in  English  grammar 
because  they  were  laboring  with  Latin  or  French. 
And  it  is  true  that  this  flashy  shell  of  an  education 
dissatisfies  many  with  the  real  work  of  their  lives. 

Meantime,  what  is  the  chief  defect  to  be  found 
throughout  the  whole  working  of  our  industrial 
system?  Is  it  not  just  what  such  an  education  has 
absolutely  organized, — a  chronic,  inbred  lack  of 
thoroughness?  Who  learns  a  trade  now,  as  the 
apprentices  did  fifty  years  ago?  What  master  work 
man  is  able  to  get  apprentices  ?  In  what  trade  do 
the  men  of  middle-age  find  the  average  workman 
as  thoroughly  master  of  all  its  details  as  he  was 
when  they  first  began  to  be  employers?  In  what 
one  is  there  a  supply  of  boys  coming  up  under 
such  training  as  surely  to  make  them  the  full  equals 
of  the  old  hands  ? 

Well,  what  is  the  remedy?  Obviously,  nothing 
will  restore  the  old  conditions.  All  over  England 
and  America  the  apprenticeship  system  seems 
doomed,  and  as  yet  there  are  only  glimmerings 
of  something  that  may  come  to  take  its  place. 

Here,  then,  are  three  grave  facts: 

Common  schools  too  wide  to  be  deep  enough ; 

A  growing  lack  of  thoroughness  in  the  industrial 
world;  and 

A  growing  discontent  on  the  part  of  the  heavier 

C 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

taxpayers  with  an  educational  system  that  some 
how  doesn't  seem  to  them  to  produce  what  is  just 
suited  either  to  the  trades  or  to  business  and  the 
professions. 

Does  not  the  mere  grouping  of  the  facts  suggest 
the  remedy  ?  Strengthen  the  basis  of  the  school 
system  before  you  increase  the  superstructure. 
Teach  fewer  things,  but  teach  them  so  they  will 
be  absolutely  known.  Make  the  course  of  study 
more  compact  and  manageable;  postpone  the  ac 
complishments  ;  banish  even  science  and  drawing, 
and  first  give  the  child  what  will  be  essential  for 
the  practical  business  of  life,  and  a  basis  for  self- 
improvement. 

Then  meet  the  obvious  want  by  establishing  in 
county  seats,  or  wherever  the  population  is  large 
enough  to  warrant  it,  free  or  partly  free  industrial 
schools.  There  teach  your  science,  your  draw 
ing,  and  whatever  else  may  tend  to  make  better 
artisans.  In  the  great  cities  extend  the  system 
to  free  technical  schools,  such  as  are  now  begin 
ning  in  New  York,  where  boys  may  learn  the  prin 
ciples,  and  even  some  of  the  practical  detail  of 
the  trades, — of  painting,  of  carriage-building,  of 
plumbing,  and  the  like.  This  is  the  plan  to  which 
England  is  already  largely  resorting,  which  has 
long  been  established  in  France,  Germany,  Bel 
gium,  Switzerland,  Sweden,  and  to  which  we 
must  soon  come.  The  multitude  of  common  schools 
may  thus  be  freed  from  a  work  they  cannot  do 
properly,  while  the  attempt  to  do  it  spoils  the  work 

n  311 3 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

they  can  and  should  do.  In  such  a  system,  says 
Professor  Huxley,  is  to  be  found  the  only  available 
remedy  for  the  losses  from  the  downfall  of  ap 
prenticeship.  To  such  a  system  one  of  the  shrewd 
est  of  our  United  States  Consuls,  in  a  recent  un 
published  report,  traces  the  growing  success  of 
certain  important  branches  of  British  manufactures. 
To  such  a  system  some  of  our  own  statesmen  are 
beginning  to  look  for  the  surest  means  of  devel 
oping  our  native  industries,  and  checking  the  un 
wholesome  tendency  away  from  the  trades,  into 
trade. 

Since  the  foregoing  was  prepared  the  State  De 
partment  has  received  and  I  have  been  permit 
ted  to  examine  a  most  interesting  report  on  the 
progress  of  technical  schools  in  England,  and  par 
ticularly  those  in  textile  fabrics  in  Bradford  and 
through  the  West  Riding,  from  the  Hon.  C.  O. 
Shepard,  the  alert  United  States  Consul  at  Brad 
ford.  After  reciting  the  endowments,  income,  and 
other  provision  fora  large  number  of  these  schools, 
the  numbers  of  pupils  in  attendance,  and  the  spe 
cific  results  attained,  he  summarizes  his  conclu 
sions  in  a  statement  which  I  have  been  permit 
ted  to  copy,  and  which  I  shall  venture  to  read  to 
you: 

' '  Let  me  add  a  few  remarks  as  to  the  objects  of  technical 
schools  and  the  best  means  of  securing  them. 

"  (l)  They  are  intended  to  supplement  the  education 
of  the  ordinary  school  with  an  education  specially  calcu 
lated  to  increase  a  man's  knowledge  of  his  trade  or  busi- 

C 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

ness,  and  so  to  make  him  a  more  useful  member  of  so 
ciety  and  a  larger  contributor  to  the  Nation's  wealth. 

"  (2)  They  should,  in  my  opinion,  form  a  part  of  the 
National  system  of  education,  and  the  scholars  should 
largely  consist  of  boys  and  girls  drafted  from  our  pub 
lic  elementary  schools.  I  include  girls  because  I  believe 
that  no  system  of  technical  education  will  be  complete 
which  does  not  make  provision  for  their  training.  In  all 
art  schools  girls  take  a  very  high  place,  and  it  is  my 
opinion  that  greater  facilities  ought  to  be  afforded  them  for 
earning  a  livelihood  by  the  use  of  their  artistic  taste  and 
acquirements  in  relation  to  all  trades  or  manufactures  in 
which  a  designer's  skill  is  required.  This  will  apply  par 
ticularly  to  the  manufacture  of  fancy  stationery,  pottery, 
and  every  variety  of  textile  fabrics. 

"  (3)  The  course  of  instruction  should  include  lectures 
by  competent  men  upon  subjects  of  technical  interest, 
such  as  the  daily  discoveries  of  science  afford. 

4 '  (4)  Arrangements  should  be  made  in  connection  with 
every  school  for  granting  certificates  or  diplomas  to  de 
serving  students,  and  every  care  should  be  taken  in  the 
election  of  the  Board  of  Examiners  and  the  choice  of 
subjects  and  questions  to  make  the  examinations  fairly 
severe,  and  such  as  to  give  the  certificate  or  diploma  real 
value  to  its  possessor. 

"  (5)  Examination  in  technological  subjects  might  be 
adopted  by  the  educational  department  of  any  State  in 
the  event  of  its  undertaking  to  carry  on  the  work  of  tech 
nical  education,  and  would  no  doubt  be  found  of  great 
practical  value. 

' 1 1  am  glad  to  know  that  a  few  technical  schools  have 
already  been  established  in  the  United  States,  principally 
in  the  engineering  and  iron  trades.  I  earnestly  hope  ere 
long  to  hear  that  a  system  of  thorough  technical  educa- 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

tion  has  been  adopted  for  the  whole  country,  as  I  do  not 
know  of  any  other  means  whereby  the  resources  of  the 
Nation  are  more  likely  to  be  developed,  or  its  manufac 
tures  improved,  than  by  increasing  the  knowledge  and 
perfecting  the  skill  of  its  artisans.  English  manufacturers 
acknowledge  that  their  most  successful  rivals  are  in  those 
countries  or  localities  where  technical  education  has  been 
carried  to  the  highest  point." 

I  take  the  greater  pleasure  in  being  able  to  give 
you  this  early  access  to  an  important  public  docu 
ment  because,  from  an  independent  point  of  view 
and  across  the  ocean,  it  comes  as  a  confirmation  of 
the  suggestions  already  offered.  The  whole  idea  is 
yet  in  its  infancy,  but  there  is  at  least  reason  to 
believe  that  the  next  great  advance  in  our  educa 
tional  system  will  give  us  fewer  studies  and  more 
thoroughness  in  our  common  schools,  with  sepa 
rate  industrial  schools  for  some  of  the  excluded 
branches ;  and  whether  this  be  a  correct  or  mis 
taken  forecast,  it  is  clear  that  no  worthier  or  more 
important  question  can  challenge  the  discussion 
and  watchful  attention  which  it  is  one  of  the  func 
tions  of  the  Town  Hall  to  stimulate. 

One  thing  more.  Here  is  the  place  to  revive  your 
local  history, watch  your  wandering  sons,  and  keep 
green  the  early  memories.  Here  would  be  the  per 
fect  field  for  some  worthy  successor,  if  you  only 
had  one,  to  the  lamented  William  Mills.  Here  you 
might  fitly  recall  the  fact  that  the  foremost  literary 
editor  of  America,  William  D.  Howells,  was  once 

314 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

a  Greene  County  boy,  his  father  living  a  few  miles 
to  the  westward  of  Xenia,  at  what  were  then  called 
the  Eureka  Mills ;  that  the  foremost  sculptor  of 
America,  J.  Q.  A.  Ward,  was  born  only  a  little  way 
out  of  the  Miami  Valley,  to  the  north  of  us,  at 
Urbana;  that  another  president  of  the  National 
Academy,  the  admirable  landscape  artist,  Worth- 
ington  Whittredge,  was  born  in  the  valley,  a  few 
miles  from  Clifton  in  this  county.  And  you  keep 
with  you  still  a  real  poet,  whom  you  need  to  chide 
because,  having  given  such  charming  proof  of  what 
he  can  do,  Mr.  Coates  Kinney  now  persistently  de 
frauds  the  world  of  the  further  work  he  ought  to  do. 
Here,  too,  should  be  told  over  the  fast  fading 
story  of  the  heroism  and  devotion  of  your  sons 
in  the  war.  Do  not  let  this  younger  generation 
forget  that  the  first  field  officer  given  to  death  for 
the  Union,  from  Ohio,  was  John  W.  Lowe,  the  first 
colonel  this  town  sent  out,  and  that  he  fell  as  you 
would  have  had  him  fall,  sword  in  hand,  in  front 
of  his  regiment,  cheering  them  to  the  advance  upon 
the  intrenched  army  of  Floyd  and  Wise.  Do  not 
let  them  forget  the  political  leaders  you  followed 
before  the  war,Harlan,and  Gest,and  Hivling,and, 
before  them  all,  Joshua  Martin.  Do  not  let  them 
forget  the  good  fellows  of  your  earlier  political 
activity.  The  echoes  in  the  Town  Hall  of  Xenia 
should  still  linger  lovingly  on  the  names  of  John 
Boyd,  and  John  McWhirk,and  Albert  Galloway. 
Teach  them  the  pure  fame  of  your  old  lawyers 
and  officials,  Ellsberry,  and  Barlow,  and  Winans, 

C  315  3 


IN  AN  OLD  OHIO  TOWN 

and  Scott,  and  Coke  Wright.  Teach  them  to  re 
vere  those  devoted  public  servants  who  left  their 
indelible  impress  on  the  education  and  morals  of 
this  community,  the  old  clergy  of  the  town,  Bev- 
eridge,  Smart,  McMillan,  Armstrong,  Gill,  Sim 
mons,  Steele.  Above  all,  teach  them  to  hold  in 
everlasting  honor  the  memory  of  the  men  who 
found  this  county  a  wilderness  and  left  it  to  you  a 
magnificent  heritage,  the  fairest  in  our  eyes  the 
sun  kisses  between  the  river  and  the  lake.  Honor 
and  reverence  for  the  virtues  of  our  pioneers,  the 
settlers  of  1800-1810 — Kentuckians,  Virginians, 
Pennsylvanians,  who  fought  the  Indian  and  the 
wild  beast,  felled  the  forest,  built  first  a  church  and 
then  a  court-house,  lived  hard  and  solitary  lives, 
but  with  courage  and  constancy,  in  their  place, 
nobly  served  their  day  and  generation.  A  few  of 
them,  with  whitening  locks  and  rugged  faces, 
seamed  with  the  privations  and  struggles  of  three- 
quarters  of  a  century  ago,  still  go  in  and  out  among 
us — lacking,  I  am  sure,  no  token  of  the  love  and 
reverence  in  which  their  descendants  hold  them. 
Heed  them  well,  for  it  is  a  sight  not  long  vouch 
safed  us.  In  a  few  months  or  years  at  best  the  very 
last  pioneer  settler  of  Greene  County  must  have 
passed  over  to  the  majority. 

'  Heroic  spirits!  take  your  rest! 

Ye  are  richer,  we  are  poorer; 
Yet,  because  ye  have  been  with  us 

Life  is  manlier, Heaven  surer." 


287956 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


